Class 
 Book 
 
 <? 
 
 Copyright}! . 
 
 COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 
 
DEBATE 
 
 ON 
 
 UNIVERSALISM 
 
 AND THE 
 
 RESURRECTION OF 
 THE DEAD 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 REV. JOHN HUGHES, 
 
 of the Universalist Church, 
 AND 
 
 ELD. JOHN R. DAILY, 
 
 of the Primitive Baptist Church, 
 
 Held in the Universalist Chapel at Waltonville, Illinois, 
 Nov. 17-20, 1908. 
 
 MODERATORS 
 
 Mr. H. P. Daniel, President. 
 
 Rev. J. B. Fosher. Eld. C. W. Radcliff. 
 
 Arthur T. French, Stenographer. 
 
 Indianapolis-: 
 DAILY & SONS, PUBLISHERS, 
 
 1909. 
 
3* 
 
 
 Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1909. by 
 
 JOHN R. DAILY 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 
 
 <g r ( iA?6l3i : 
 
9-— 
 — 
 
 ^ 
 
 > 
 
Eld. John P. Daily 
 
Rev. John Hughes, D. D. 
 
PROPOSITIONS AND RULES 
 
 Proposition I. The Scriptures teach that all the humaii 
 family will finally be brought to enjoy a state of endless 
 holiness and happiness. Mr. Hughes affirms. 
 
 Proposition II. The Scriptures teach that there will be a 
 resurrection in a spiritual state of the natural bodies of all 
 the dead of the Adamic race, a part of whom will suffer 
 endless punishment. Mr. Daily affirms. 
 
 RULES OF DISCUSSION. 
 
 I. The two propositions agreed to shall be discussed by 
 the disputants at Waltonville, 111. , the debate to begin Nov. 
 17, 1908, to continue four days, two days to be given to the 
 discussion of each proposition. 
 
 II There shall be two sessions each day, of two hours 
 each, occupying from 10 o'clock a. m. to 12 o'clock, and 
 from 2 o'clock p. m. to 4 o'clock p. m. 
 
 III. In the opening of each subject, the affirmant shall 
 occupy one hour, and the respondent the same time ; and 
 thereafter half hour alternately to the close of the subject. 
 
 IV. On the final negative no new matter shall be intro- 
 duced except in reply to what shall have been introduced in 
 the closing affirmitive for the first time. 
 
 V. There shall be chosen a board of three moderators, the 
 disputants to choose one each, and they to choose a third, 
 who shall be the moderator of the board and president mod- 
 erator of the debate. 
 
 VI. Hedge's Rules of Logic shall be the rules of decorum 
 of the speakers, which are as follows : 
 
 1. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, 
 and the point at issue, should be clearly defineJ, that there 
 could be no misunderstanding respecting them. 
 
£. The parties should mutually consider each other as 
 standing on a footing of equality, in respect to the subject in 
 debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal 
 talents, knowledge, and a desire for the truth with himself : 
 and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the 
 wrong, and his adversary in the right. 
 
 3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect 
 in regard to the subject in debate, should be carefully avoid- 
 ed. . 
 
 4. Personal reflections on an adversary should, in no in- 
 stance, be indulged. 
 
 5. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged 
 on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them. 
 
 6. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of 
 controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced on either 
 side should be examined with fairness and candor ; and any 
 attempt to answer an adversary by arts of sophistry, or to 
 lessen the force of his reasoning by wit, cavilling or ridicule^ 
 is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy. 
 
 Mr. Hughes preferred to occupy one half hour in opening 
 his proposition, which was agreed to. 
 
FIRST PROPOSITION 
 
 THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT ALL THE HUMAN FAMILY WILL BB 
 
 FINALLY BROUGHT TO ENJOY A STATE OF ENDLESS HOLINESS AND 
 
 HAPPINESS. 
 
 MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, L,adies and Gentle- 
 men: — It is a pleasure to me this morning under the 
 favor of a good Providence to meet so large and in- 
 telligent an audience for the purpose of discussing the 
 great questions which pertain to the final destiny of 
 the human family. I am glad also that we are to be 
 under the control of so competent a Board of Modera- 
 tors. They will, of course, be impartial, and enforce 
 the Rules of decorum upon both of us without respect 
 of persons. It is also a pleasure to me to have for my 
 opponent a gentleman of so great a reputation as a de- 
 bater, and of scholarship ; a man who is capable in 
 every sense of the word to present his side of the con- 
 troversy between us. So I pay my respects to him, 
 and sincerely hope that this discussion shall be con- 
 ducted by us as Christian gentlemen, having a desire 
 for the truth only, and for its advancement in the 
 world. 
 
 These few words in the way of preliminary and in- 
 troduction ; and as I do not wish to waste time more 
 
P FIRST PROPOSITION, 
 
 than necessary in mere pieliminary I come directly to 
 my Proposition, which reads as follows : 
 
 The Scriptures teach that all the human family will 
 finally be brought to enjoy a state of endless holiness and 
 happiness. 
 
 It is my duty to so define this proposition, that the 
 issue may be clearly understood by all of you worthy 
 people, so that there can be no misunderstanding con- 
 cerning it. By the Scriptures, I mean the Bible, the 
 Old and New Testaments. It is the Book of proof in 
 this discussion. Generally I shall use the authorized 
 version, as you all have it, probably I shall have oc- 
 casion, as I claim the right, to refer to American Re" 
 vised Version for the purpose of coming more directly 
 to the Scriptures as given us by the Holy Spirit. "The 
 Scriptures teach," that is, when fairly construed and 
 rightly understood, that all the human family, that is, 
 all mankind without exception, shall be brought to a 
 state of holiness and happiness. That is, I mean they 
 shall be holy in character, and consequently happy. 
 Men are not to be saved in sin, but from sin; they are 
 to become holy. This is to be their final condition ; so 
 I am not affirming that all men are saved now, or that 
 they will be immediately after death, but finally . This 
 state of all men is to be endless; of course it will be, if 
 it is a final one, and so the word endless seems to be 
 superfluous here. But farther on in the discussion I 
 will show that it is endless, however. Now I trust 
 you will understand the position I propose to maintain' 
 and so I advance to my first proof on this Proposition. 
 
 I. The Nature of God. When the Scriptures 
 define the Divine Nature they do it in three simple 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 7 
 
 words : ''God is love" I Jno. iv : 8. 16. His justice, 
 his mercy, his goodness, are but expressions and mani- 
 festations of his love. As God is an infinite being, 
 and his love is his moral nature, his love must be in- 
 finite in degree, unlimited in extent, and endless in 
 duration. God loves all mankind of whatever race or 
 character, and we are certified that he has manifested 
 his love and given full proof of it in the gift of his Son 
 to the world. So we read : "God so loved the world, 
 that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
 believeth in him should not perish, but have everlast- 
 ing life. Jno. iii : 16. "God commendeth his love 
 towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ 
 died for us." Rom. v : 8. "But God who is rich in 
 mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even 
 when we were dead in sins hath quickened us together 
 with Christ." Eph. ii: 4, 5. 
 
 So God loves all men, he loves them when they do 
 not love him, he loves them when sinners, yea, when 
 dead in sin. The divine love is wholly uncaused on 
 our part, it being the free expression of his nature, 
 and comes to us without condition. There is nothing 
 partial in God's love, it is not confined to an elect, or 
 a special people, for whom only Christ died, for "He 
 is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, 
 but also for the sins of the whole world." I Jno. ii : 2, 
 God's purpose concerning man's salvation originating 
 in infinite benevolence, was formed in the light of in- 
 finite knowledge and wisdom. So it is said; "His un- 
 derstanding is infinite." Ps. cxlv : 5. "Known unto 
 God are all his works from the beginning of the 
 world." Act xv : 18 "I am God, and there is none 
 
8 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 else ; I am God, and there is none like me ; declaring 
 the end from the beginning, and from the ancient times 
 the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel 
 shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Isa. xlvi ; 
 9, 10. 
 
 Such design, formed by the knowledge that takes in 
 all times, all circumstances, and all that man could 
 possibly be, would inevitably be perfect, and one 
 which could by no possibility prove abortive, nor by 
 any agency thwarted. Besides, Almighty power can 
 in no way lack ability to carry out the designs of infi- 
 nite wisdom. And the "Lord God omnipotent reign- 
 eth." Rev. xix : 6. 
 
 And we must not forget that God is as infinitely 
 great in his moral nature as in his natural attributes. 
 His word of truth will accomplish his pleasure beyond 
 all question. So testifies the Prophet Isaiah: "For 
 as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, 
 and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and 
 maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed 
 to the sower and bread to the eater : so shall my word 
 be that goeth forth out of my mouth ; it shall not re- 
 turn unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which 
 I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I 
 sent it." Isa. lv : 10, 11. 
 
 Infinite benevolence, whose purposes are formed in 
 infinite wisdom, and backed by infinite power, can 
 never fail to full accomplishment, unless, indeed, man 
 shouldget beyond the reach and influence of divine 
 love,. but that is impossible as St. Paul has implicitly 
 taught us : "For I am pursuaded, that ueither death, 
 nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 9 
 
 things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor 
 depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate 
 us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our 
 Lord." Rom. viii : 38. 39. 
 
 II. The Fatherhood of God. That God is the 
 Father of all mankind is the clear teaching of the 
 Bible : "Have we not all one Father? Hath not one 
 God created us?" Mai. ii : 10. "But to us there is 
 but the one God, the Father." I Cor. viii : 6. "One 
 God and Father of all." Eph. iv : 6. "Call no man 
 your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, 
 which is in Heaven;" Matt, xxiii: 9. 
 
 The unity of the Divine Nature, and the oneness of 
 the Divine Paternity are related truths; — There is the 
 ' ' One God, ' ' and he is the ' ' One Father. ' ' 
 
 To deny the universal Fatherhood of God, is to deny 
 the universal brotherhood of man ; to invalidate . the 
 Golden Rule ; nullify the second great commandment ; 
 and make void the eternal reason which underlies the 
 .Saviour's command : "Love your enemies ; do good to 
 them that hate you ; bless them that curse you ; and 
 pray for them which despitefully use you and perse- 
 cute you, that }^e may be the children of your Father 
 which is in heaven." Matt, v: 44. 45. If not relat- 
 ed to them , why love them? 
 
 God constituted himself the Father of men by creat- 
 ing them in his image. "So God created man in his 
 own image." Gen. i : 27. It is not simply by crea- 
 tion aloire that man becomes the child of God, but by 
 virtue of imparting the divine nature in creating him 
 in his image. The divine in man is not the flesh, nor 
 of the bodily form, but as "God is Spirit," (Jno. iv : 
 
10 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 24.) it is in our Spiritual natures that we are related 
 to him. The children of God are not flesh and blood, 
 but partakers of it only, as we learn in Heb. ii : 14. 
 ' 'Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and 
 blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." 
 So God is the "Father of Spirits." Heb. xii : 9. 
 
 The paternal relation is a real one. It is a tie of 
 nature. Not something that can be assumed or laid 
 aside at pleasure. The parent cannot dissolve the re- 
 lationship existing between himself and his child, let 
 that child become what it will ; nor can he rid him- 
 self of the obligation of a father. The wandering sin- 
 ful prodigal could look back to a father and & father' s 
 house. God himself cannot break the relationship 
 between himself and his children, short of their anni- 
 hilation, or the destruction of the attributes which 
 make them men. 
 
 Nor can it be said that man lost the divine image 
 through sin, and that he severed the kinship between 
 himself and God ; for four thousand years after the 
 creation it was declared that "men are made after the 
 similitude of God." J as. iii : 9. Sin does not destroy 
 this relationship. God addresses the Jews as "back- 
 sliding children." Jer. iii : 14. Why call them child- 
 ren if sin destroys that relationship ? Besides, Paul 
 recognizes the unconverted heathen at Athens as "the 
 offspri7ig of God. ' ' 
 
 "For in him we live and move and have our being ; as cer- 
 tain of your own poets have said. For we are also his off- 
 spring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we 
 ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or 
 silver, or stone, given by art and man's device." Acts, xvii : 
 28. 29. 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH, II 
 
 If the heathen idolators are God's offspring, why 
 not then all men his children ? 
 
 But it may be said, that some are called "the child- 
 ren of the devil," in contradistinction to the children 
 of God, But the phrases thus used are descriptive of 
 character, and not of relationship, as is common in 
 the New Testament, and have no reference to the 
 question in hand. So some are called the "Sons of 
 thunder," Matt, iii : 17. "Children of this world." 
 Luke, xvi : 18. "Children of wisdom." Matt, xi : 16. 
 "Children of light." Jno. xii : 36. Children of diso- 
 bedience." Eph. ii : 2. Not that they are the off- 
 spring of the things named, but because of character, 
 istic quality. So when men are "called the children 
 of the devil," it is descriptive of character, and not 
 that they are the offspring of a fallen spirit. 
 
 So also men may be the children of God in a char- 
 acteristic sense, as in Matt, v: 44. 45. "Love your 
 enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them 
 that hate you, pray for them that despitefully use 
 you, and persecute you, that ye may be the children 
 of your Father which is in heaven." Now what can 
 a man do to become the child of his father other than 
 in a characteristic sense ? The child that looks like 
 his father and acts like him, we call the child of his 
 father ; and no one mistakes our meaning. 
 
 God is therefore the Father of all mankind ; and as 
 he has constituted himself as such, and given himself 
 that endearing name, we have the right to all that it 
 means to us, and to the eternal hope based upon that 
 divine fact. We have a right to say that his love 
 Paternal resembles that of the good and wise earthly 
 
12 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 parent, while it is infinitely greater and far more en- 
 during, as he is infinite in his nature and unchange- 
 able in all his perfections. The Scriptures bear full 
 and explicit testimony to this point. 
 
 "Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should 
 not have compassion on the son of her womb ? Yea, they 
 may forget, yet will I not forget thee. " Isa. xlix : 15. 
 
 "Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, 
 will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give 
 him a serpent ? If ye then, being evil, know how to give 
 good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your 
 Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask 
 him." Matt, vii : 9. 11. 
 
 God then as our Father is more loving and more 
 ready to give than the earthly father; and his love is 
 more tender than the mother for her babe. 
 
 We can then but believe that God our Father will 
 be true to that relation. He cannot deny himself. 
 To believe any thing else distrusts his faithfulness, 
 and dishonors his love. We can but hold, in view of 
 this most precious of all truths, that the divine gov- 
 ernment will be a Paternal one ; and that divine 
 punishments will be Fatherly eorrections . And we 
 may assert with all confidence, that the final issue of 
 the divine government, and the ultimate fate of all 
 men will be consistent with the infinitely loving 
 character of our Heavenly Father. — [Time expired. 
 
kk. daily's FIRST REPLY, t^ 
 
 MR. DAILY'S FIRST REPLY. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gen- 
 tlemen : — In rising to reply to the first speech of un- 
 worthy opponent, and thus open my part of the dis- 
 cussion to which I am now committed, I realize the 
 responsibility of the position I assume. There are 
 some considerations, however, that render this occa- 
 sion one of pleasure to me. It is a great pleasure to 
 me that we have an intelligent audience of candid 
 people, who are capable of weighing the arguments 
 that may be advanced and duly appreciating them. 
 I feel glad that we have been able to secure the ser- 
 vices of the gentlemen who are to act as our modera- 
 tors, and I am sure that the debate will be carried on 
 to the satisfaction of all so far as they are responsible 
 for its conduct. It is also a source of pleasure to me 
 that I have as my opponent Mr. John Hughes, of 
 whom I have heard, after whom I have read, and 
 who has been for so many years the acknowledged 
 champion of 1 the Universalist faith. I am sure ' that 
 if the cause he represents in this discussion is capable 
 of being upheld he will uphold it. If his cause fails 
 it will not be because of any lack of ability on the 
 part of the one chosen to champion it. 
 
 It is my duty to pay due attention to the arguments 
 offered in the speech to which you have just listened. 
 It is not to be expected that I should notice every 
 passage of scripture quoted, but that I should give 
 such attention to the arguments adduced as their im- 
 portance demands, and show that the scriptures used 
 do not prove the arguments. The first argument 
 
1 4 £lRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 brought forward was based upon the nature of God, 
 and particularly his nature in regard to his love. The 
 argument was made, and an attempt was made to 
 prove it, not only that God is love, but that he loves 
 the entire human family, all of them exactly alike. 
 Now as to the "human family" referred to in this 
 argument, and to which reference will be made 
 throughout this discussion, I ask brother Hughes to 
 tell us what he means by that family. I ask him if 
 they whom God created of the dust of the earth con- 
 stitute the human family. Is the human family the 
 one thus created, or is it a family of invisible spirits? 
 The argument drawn from the love of God simply 
 refutes itself. The argument is, God is love, there- 
 fore all men will be finally brought to enjoy a state 
 of endless holiness and happiness. But I can as logic- 
 ally reason that God is love, therefore all men are 
 now holy and happy. We all know that the latter 
 conclusion is false, for all men are not now holy and 
 happy. The latter conclusion being false, the pre- 
 sumption is that the former is false also, for they are 
 drawn from the same premise. The love of God has 
 failed to produce the holiness and happiness of all in 
 ages past, it still fails to produce that result, and the 
 certain assurance is that it will continue to fail to 
 prodnce such a result. Men, notwithstanding God's 
 love, have gone on in sin, waxing worse and worse, 
 deceiving and being deceived. After this life there 
 will be some degree of separation, even according to 
 Universalists, the righteous being elevated somewhat 
 above those who die in sin and rebellion. Now if 
 such are not saved here, in the company of the right- 
 
MR. Daily's first reply. 15 
 
 eous and having the advantage of such a favorable 
 environment, there can be no evidence whatever that 
 they will ever be saved in the world to come, since 
 God's love is as strong and unchangeable as it will 
 ever be, and since in eternity they will be separated 
 from the influence of the righteous. If they continue 
 to hate God here, notwithstanding his love and the 
 good influence of the righteous, it is to be reasonably 
 supposed that they will always continue to hate him. 
 
 But love is not the only passion attributed to God. 
 While it is said that God is love, it is also said that 
 he is a consuming fire, and that vengeance belongs to 
 him. 
 
 Deut. xxxii : 34, 35 : "Is not this laid up in store for me, 
 and sealed up among my treasures ? To me belongeth ven- 
 geance, and recompence ; their foot shall slide in due time : 
 for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that 
 shall come upon them make haste." 
 
 Rom. xii : 19 : "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, 
 but rather give place unto wrath : for it is written, Ven- 
 geance is mine ; I will repay, saith the Lord. ' ' 
 
 It is here declared that vengeance belongs exclusive- 
 ly to God. It is also declared in Heb. xii : 29, that 
 God is a consuming fire. So while my opponent 
 argues that God is love, therefore all will be brought 
 to enjoy a state of holiness and happiness, I can argue 
 with the same parity of reasoning, that God is a con- 
 suming fire, therefore all will be finally brought to a 
 state of wretchedness and misery. 
 
 The argument of my opponent, drawn from 
 the love of God, is based on the assumption that God 
 loves every member of the human family exactly 
 alike. This is a mere assumption of his, which he 
 
t6 MR. DAItY*S PIRS? REPLY. 
 
 has failed to prove, and which he will never succeed 
 in proving. This I most positively deny, and I shall 
 now proceed to prove my denial. 
 
 Rom. ix : 10, 13: "And not only this ; but when Rebecca 
 also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, (for the 
 children being not yet born, neither having done any good or 
 evil, that the purpose of God according to election might 
 stand, not of works, but of him that calleth ;) it was said 
 unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written 
 Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. ' ' 
 
 As Paul here refers to the case of Jacob and Esau 
 to demonstrate and prove the doctrine of election, and 
 show that it is not of works but of God who calleth, 
 Jacob represents the elect of God and Esau the re- 
 mainder of mankind. This cannot be successfully 
 denied. Since God is unchangeable, he will love those 
 in eternity whom he loves in time, and he will hate 
 those in eternity whom he hates in time. This propo- 
 sition stands in refutation of his argument and cannot 
 be overthrown. It follows as an unavoidable conclu- 
 sion that God does not love all alike, and that all will 
 not be finally brought to enjoy a state of endless holi- 
 ness and happiness. All the passages quoted by Bro. 
 Hughes that speak of the love of God cannot be con- 
 strued to prove that he loves every member alike. 
 This argument fails, therefore, to prove the doctrine 
 expressed by his proposition. 
 
 The next argument introduced in support of this 
 proposition is that God is the Father of the entire 
 human race ; the Father of all the human family. 
 Brother Hughes has undertaken to argue that God is 
 Father of all the human family because he created 
 them. In supposed proof of this proposition he quo- 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIRST REPLY. 1 7 
 
 Mai. ii : 10, "Have we not all one Father? Hath 
 not one God created us?" The prophet is not ad- 
 dressing the entire human family in this passage, but 
 a peculiar, special people. In this passage, "But to 
 us there is but one God, the Father," Paul is not 
 addressing the whole world, but the church at Corinth 
 and them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to 
 be saints. See I. Cor. i : 2. The same is true of the 
 other passages that refer to God as a Father 
 
 The argument made was, I will have you notice, 
 that God is the Creator of the human family, and is 
 therefore the Father of all. Does he mean that he is 
 the Father of the man that he created of the dust of 
 the earth ? He has presented in this first speech of 
 his an important issue that will be kept before the 
 people throughout this discussion. He has argued 
 that the children of God, comprising the whole human 
 family, is a family of spirits, and not of flesh. Ac- 
 cording to this position none of us ever saw a human 
 being ! I see before me a large audience, but if Bro. 
 Hughes is correct / do not see a human being before 
 me ! If the human family are all to be brought to 
 enjoy a state of endless holiness and happiness, and 
 all are the children of God, and God's children con- 
 sist only of a family of invisible spirits, then God did 
 not create the human f amity of the dust of the earth, 
 and no one ever saw a human bei?ig ! 
 
 1. If God is the Father of all, in the sense of being 
 their Creator, he was the Father of Adam when he 
 was holy and happy. Since that relation did not pre- 
 serve man from becoming unholy and wretched, there 
 can be no just reason for supposing that relationship 
 
18 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 will ever restore those to holiness and happiness who 
 have long lived in wilfnl sin against God. 
 
 2 . The providence of God is a complete refutation 
 of the argument drawn from the supposed universal 
 fatherhood of God as our Creator. God drowned the 
 old world. He burned many in the destruction of 
 Sodom and Gomorrah. These things are consistent 
 with his character as a Father or the} 7 are not. If 
 they are not, then he is not the Father of all, and the 
 argument falls to the ground. If they are, then he 
 could do all that the Bible teaches he will do to the 
 wicked in hell and still be a Father in the sense of 
 creation. 
 
 3. If God is the Father of all, in the sense of crea- 
 tion, he is as much so now as he ever will be. As all 
 are not made holy and happy now, as a result of God's 
 being Father in the sense of creation, there is no good 
 reason for believing that all will ever be holy and hap- 
 py as a result of that relation. 
 
 4. If God is the Father all mankind because of cre- 
 ation, he is as much the Father of the brute creation. 
 If it be said he is merely the Father of the spirits of all 
 men as their Creator, then it is as reasonable to suppose 
 him to be the Father of the spirits of all beasts. Kccle. 
 iii : 21 : "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth 
 upward, or the spirit of the beast that goeth down- 
 ward to the earth?" These reductio ad absurda cannot 
 be set aside. They prove to a demonstration the ab- 
 surdity and falsity of the proposition. 
 
 5. Men are said to be the children of God by adop- 
 tion. 
 
 Rom. viii. 15 : "For ye have not received the spirit of 
 
Mr. daily's first reply. 19 
 
 bondage again to fear ; but ye have received the spirit of 
 adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." 
 
 Eph. i. 4, 5 : "According as he hath chosen us in him be- 
 fore the foundation of the world, that we should be holy 
 and without blame before him in love : having predestinated 
 us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto him- 
 self, according to the good pleasure of his will." 
 
 A man cannot adopt his own child, which is already 
 as much his child .as it can be, but he ma}' take a 
 child not his own and make it his by adoption. If all 
 are the children of God by nature and natural crea- 
 tion, then ?ione of them can be adopted! If any are 
 adopted and thus become his children,, then those not 
 thus adopted are not his children. This is true accord- 
 ing to Rom. ix. 8 : "That is, they which are the 
 children of the flesh, these are not the children of 
 God ; but the children of the promise are counted for 
 the seed." This is positive proof that all are not the 
 children of the promise, and are not, therefore, the 
 children of God. Again, Heb. xii. 8 : "But if ye be 
 without chastisements, whereof all are partakers, then 
 are ye bastards, and not sons." This shows that all 
 the children of God are partakers of his chastisements, 
 and that some are not. Those who are not are bas- 
 tards and not so?is I Then all are not the sons of God. 
 6. If being created originally constituted us chil- 
 dren of God, then there can be no reason shown why 
 any must be born again. Being born of the flesh 
 only, constitutes us children of the flesh, and not the 
 spiritual children of God. To become the spiritual 
 children of God we must be bor7i again. 
 
 John iii. 3—8 : "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, 
 verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he can- 
 
20 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 not see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said unto him, how 
 can a man be born when he is old ? Can he enter a second 
 time into his mother's womb, and be born ? Jesus answered, 
 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the 
 water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God. That which is born of flesh is flesh ; and that which is 
 born of the Spirit is Spirit. Marvel not that I said unto 
 thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it 
 listeth ; and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not 
 tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one 
 that is born of the Spirit. ' ' 
 
 7. If any people on earth could claim God as their 
 Father on the ground of natural relationship, that 
 people were the Jews. They boasted of their sonship. 
 If Universalism had been true, Jesus would have told 
 them that they were correct in their notion, and that 
 all are children of God. Instead of sanctioning their 
 opinion, and teaching the doctrine of Universalism, 
 he stood in direct opposition to their claim, and POSI- 
 TIVELY denied IT ! John viii. 41, 44 : "Ye do the 
 deeds of your Father. Then said they to him, We 
 be not born of fornication ; we have one Father, even 
 God." Now, if Universalism had been true, Jesus 
 would have told them that God was really their 
 Father, in actual relationship, but they had become 
 the children of another in mere character. Iyisten 
 what he said : "Jesus said unto them, If God were 
 your Father, ye would love me, for I proceeded and 
 came forth from God." Why did Christ not say, 
 God is the Father of all of you ? He did not say it 
 because it was not true ! Their not loving him proved 
 that God was not their Father. I John iii. 10: "In 
 this the children of God are manifested, and the child- 
 ren of the devil : whosoever doeth not righteousness is 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIRST REPLY. 21 
 
 not of God" (not a child of God). Matt, xiii: 38 : 
 "The field is the world ; the good seed are the children 
 of the kingdom." It is plainly taught in these pas- 
 sages that all are not the children of God. 
 
 8. The following passage positively teaches that all 
 are not the children of God. 
 
 Rom. viii : 14 — 16 : "For as many as are led by the Spirit 
 of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received 
 the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the 
 Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The 
 Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the 
 children of God : and if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, 
 and joint-heirs with Christ." 
 
 Since as many as are led by the Spirit of God are 
 the sons of God, those who are not thus led are not 
 his sons. Since none can cry, "Abba, Father," ex- 
 cept those who have received the Spirit of adoption, 
 no others have any right to claim him as their Father. 
 If all were the children of God, the Spirit to bear witness 
 to that fact would not be needed. The expression, "If 
 children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint-heirs 
 with Christ," clearly implies that all are not children 
 of God, and consequently not his heirs. 
 
 I shall devote the remainder of my time to the pre- 
 sentation of negative arguments: 
 
 Negative Argument I. My first negative argument 
 is, that at the time of the resurrection some will be 
 unjust, and will be thus distinguished from the just. 
 
 Acts xxiv. 14, 15: "But this I confess unto thee, that 
 after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God 
 of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the 
 law and the prophets: and have hope toward God, which they 
 themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of 
 the dead, both of the just and unjust." 
 
22 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 At the resurrection of the dead, spoken of in this 
 passage by Paul, both the just and the unjust will 
 enter eternity. As some will enter eternity in an un- 
 justified state, they will continue in that state unless 
 they are changed after entering eternity. I deny 
 that any change will be made in the condition of the 
 unjust in eternity, or after the resurrection. As some 
 will enter eternity at the resurrection in an unjustified 
 state, and as there will be no change made in their 
 condition after the resurrection, they will never be 
 brought to enjoy a state of endless holiness and 
 happiness. I challenge Brother Hughes to prove that 
 there will ever be any change in any after resurrection. 
 Those who enter eternity unjustified will remain so 
 forever, and those who enter it justfied will remain 
 so. This truth is declared by the angel to the Revela- 
 tor John: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still." 
 
 Negative Argument II. My Second negative argu- 
 ment is predicated on the fact that Jesus plainly asserts 
 that there is danger of being cast into everlasting fire, 
 aud that this shall be to them everlasting punishment. 
 Matt, xviii. 8: "It is better for thee to enter into life 
 maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to 
 be cast into everlasting fire." This language of Jesus 
 is without significance, or at least it is misleading, 
 if there is no danger at all of being cast into everlast- 
 ing fire. It would be blasphemy to accuse Jesus of 
 using language that is without significance or that is 
 misleading. Those who heard him use this language 
 could not fail to understand him to declare there was 
 danger of being cast into everlasting fire. Matt. xxv. 
 41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left 
 
MR. HUGHES SECOND SPFKCH. 23 
 
 hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting 
 fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." — [Time 
 expired. 
 
 MR, HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 
 
 Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
 men: — Having heard Bro. Daily's reply to my first 
 speech, I have no disposition to retreat from my posi- 
 tion which I still consider well taken. At j; the;, battle 
 of Marengo, Napoleon had at one time lost hope, 
 and considering that his great army was defeated, he 
 called to a little drummer boy, and ordered him to 
 beat a retreat, "Dessaix never taught me retreat, but 
 I can beat a charge that will call the dead into line. O 
 ma}^ I beat a charge?" A charge was^ beaten, and 
 Marengo was added to Napoleon's victories. 
 
 I propose to stand by my position, for I '"had con- 
 sidered well every statement made before meeting Bro. 
 Daily, and he would have saved nearly half of his 
 time, had he confined himself to the proposition, 
 and he will need it all before we finish the debate. 
 
 He says he would be glad for Universalism to be 
 true if I can prove it by the Scriptures. That shows 
 that his heart is not reconciled to the doctrine of end. 
 less misery. Who would not love to have all men 
 to be saved ? 
 
 He wants me to define what I mean by the human 
 family. I know of but one human family, and 
 I showed you that man was created in God's 
 
24 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 image. As to the body he was formed of the dust of 
 the ground, but that it was his spiritual nature that 
 was created in the divine image, and that is the essen- 
 tial part. For God is the ''Father of Spirits." Heb. 
 xii. 9. And he is "the God of the spirits of all flesh." 
 Num. xvi, 22. I said distinctly when I was speaking 
 of the Fatherhood of God, that God is not the Father 
 of men simply because he created them, for that 
 would make him the father of all he has created, even 
 of animals. But that he is the father of the human 
 family because he created them "in his image." And 
 so we read in Luke's genealogy (hi. 38.) "which was 
 the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which 
 was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." 
 Did Adam ever lose that sonship ? I am not advoca- 
 ting the salvation of man's body. As to man's being 
 formed of the dust of the ground, if Bro. Daily wishes 
 to pin down that to mean that God created nothing 
 but the body, let him remember, that God "breathed 
 into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a 
 living soul." Gen. ii. 7. 
 
 In replying to my first argument on the Divine 
 Nature he fails to notice the passages I quoted in my 
 proof, and my reasoning upon them. I certainly 
 showed that God loved the world, and that the proof 
 of it was in the gift of his Son. That he loved men 
 while sinners, even when dead in sin, so could not but 
 be a universal love. This attempt at a reply to this: 
 that God is a "God of vengeance" and that love is not 
 the only attribute, is not well taken. Vengeance is not 
 an attribute, and the words "vengeance is mine," 
 Rom. xii. 19, is only an assertion of God's right to 
 
MR. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 25 
 
 punish, and love is concerned in just punishment as 
 well as justice. Love is not an attribute of God, but 
 his nature, and his attributes are but expressions of it. 
 But again "God is a consuming fire." But the fire 
 does not consume his children, but burns up the dross 
 and filth in them. As in Isa. iv. 4. "When the Lord 
 shall have washed' away the filth of the daughters of 
 Zion, and shall' have purged the blood of Jerusalem 
 from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and 
 by the spirit of burning." And again in Kzek. xxii. 
 "I will gather you in the midst of Jerusalem, as they 
 gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead into the 
 midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it to melt it, 
 so will I gather you in mine anger and in my fury, 
 and will leave you there and melt you, yea I will gath- 
 er you and blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, 
 and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof. As silver 
 is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be 
 melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I 
 the Lord have poured out my fury upon you." All 
 of this we learn from verse 15 was to consume their 
 filthiness out of them. And it was, though severe, a 
 beneficent punishment, rather than vindictive ven- 
 geance. 
 
 In the context in Romans where it is said, "Ven- 
 geance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord," it is 
 made clear that human punishment under God, by 
 the Magistrate, is the meaning of ivrath and vengeance. 
 
 "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. 
 But if thou do that which is evil be afraid, for he 
 beareth not the sword in vain ; for he is the minister of 
 God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth 
 
26 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 evil/' Rom. 13: 4. 
 
 But we have the quotation ; "Jacob have I loved, 
 but Esau have I hated," with the remark; "whom 
 God hates in this life, he will hate in eternity." But 
 if my brother will investigate he will find that Mai. 
 i: 2-4, to which St. Paul refers, has reference to two 
 nations, the Jews and the Edomites, and refers to God's 
 providential dealings with them in this life, and has 
 no reference to eternity' It has no reference to God's 
 personal relationship with the individuals of these na- 
 tions. The Jews were a chosen peculiar people in 
 God's purpose of love, which embraces the good of 
 the race. They were elect, but not for themselves 
 alone; for through them salvation was to come to the 
 Gentiles. Rom. xi: n. No man is elected for himself 
 only. And many times the greater suffering comes 
 upon the elect. The higher position called to, the 
 greater the responsibility. God hates no one in time. 
 He will hate no one in eternity. He has no reason to 
 hate. He cannot hate because he is love. God loves 
 all, even the chief est sinners; and has commended his 
 love to them in that Christ died for them. Rom. v: 8. 
 
 He says, I assume that God is the Father of all 
 things he created. No sir, I did not. I proved 
 that God is the Father of all men, because he created 
 them in his image, and I carefully guarded that point. 
 But God burned Sodom and Gomorrah, and he asks if 
 they will be saved? I believe so finally. I believe in 
 just punishment as well as he does. Whom God 
 loveth he chasteneth, and I believe God took away 
 those wicked cities as "he saw good." The punish- 
 ment of the Jews was greater than that of Sodom, I^am. 
 
MR. HUGHES SECOND SPEECH. 27 
 
 iv: 6. "For the punishment of the daughter of my 
 people is greater than the punishment of the sin of 
 Sodom which was overthrown as in a moment, and no 
 hands stayed on her." Its punishment could not 
 then be endless. And I cannot see how this affects 
 the question of the final holiness and happiness of all 
 men. 
 
 But if all men are the children of God he cannot see 
 how they can become children by adoption. They 
 can become children by adoption, just as they become 
 children characteristically, as I explained in making 
 my argument on the Fatherhood of God. One point 
 covers the other. First, men are the children of God 
 by relationship, then characteristically. I quoted 
 several passages on that point, and I think made my- 
 self clear on it. And it was in this sense of character 
 and not of relationship Jesus called the Jews the child- 
 ren of the devil, Jno viii: 44. It is in this same chap- 
 ter that Jesus says to the Jews, "If ye were Abraham's 
 children ye would do the works of Abraham." Verse 
 39. But it is in the sense of relationship that he says, 
 "I know that ye are Abraham's seed," and again, 
 "Your father Abraham rejoiced tc see my day." In 
 one case they are the children of Abraham, in the 
 sense of character, in the other they were not. This 
 illustrates and makes clear how it is that the whole 
 human family are the children of God by relationship, 
 and yet that men of evil character can be called the 
 children of the evil one. 
 
 Mr. Daily quotes the words, "let him that is unjust 
 be unjust still" from Rev. xxii. n, to prove that 
 there can be no change after death. It would be well 
 
28 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 for him to show that that passage refers to the after 
 death state, before he assumes that it proves that there 
 will be no change after that time, and so that the 
 wicked must remain unjust to all eternity. If that 
 were true, Paul was wrong in teaching, "As in Adam 
 all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 
 I Cor, xv, 22. 
 
 But God is love, and is the Father of all men just 
 as much now as he ever will be, and all are not saved 
 now^ and so his love and Fatherhood are no proof 
 that they ever will be. But I reply, has the divine 
 exhausted itself? Has it done all for man it ever 
 will do? Are the elect all saved now? If not, what 
 proof is there that they ever will be? Christ's reign 
 is a progressive one. The work of salvation is a pro- 
 gressive one. "As it is written, Eye hath not seen, 
 nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of 
 man, the things which God hath prepared for them that 
 love him."' I Cor. ii. 9. So I think we may trust 
 ••God's love for the future as well as the past, and not 
 believe that his work is done, or that his Fatherhood 
 will not still receive prodigals, and his son still will 
 seek for his lost sheep until he finds them. Luke xv. 
 4. I come now to my Third Argument. 
 
 III. Paul's Statement of the Gospel. 
 
 "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars hill, and said, ye 
 men of Athens, I perceive that in all things, ye are too 
 superstitious, for as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, 
 I found an altar to the unknown God. Whom, therefore, ye 
 ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you. God that made 
 the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of 
 heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands ; 
 neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though he needeth 
 
MR. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 20. 
 
 anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath and all 
 things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to 
 dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined th e 
 times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation ; 
 that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel 
 after him. and find him, though he be not far from every 
 one of us ; for in him we live and move, and have our being ; 
 as certain of your own poets have said. For we are also his 
 offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, 
 we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or 
 silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And at the 
 times of this ignorance God winked at ; but now commandeth 
 all men everywhere to repent ; because he hath appointed a 
 day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness by 
 that man whom he hath ordained ; whereof he hath given 
 assurance to all men, in that he hath raised him from the 
 dead." Act. xvii. 22-31. 
 
 On this passage I note the following points. 
 
 i. God is the creator of heaven and earth, and all 
 things therein. 
 
 2. He hath made of one all nations of men to dwell 
 on all the face of the earth. There is then a unity of 
 the race. 
 
 3 . All are the offspring of God, so related to him 
 as children. This is said to idolatrous heathen. 
 
 4. There is a sovereignty of God over all men, to 
 the end that they should seek the Lord if haply they 
 might feel after him and find him. 
 
 5. As God is a sovereign, so there is a universal 
 responsibility of men to him ; and having introduced 
 this new dispensation of light and knowledge he com- 
 mands all men everywhere to repent. If the benefits 
 of this new kingdom of grace was not designed for 
 all men, there Would not be this universal command. 
 
 6. In this new era Christ has universal rule given 
 
36 PtRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 him over men as the Judge of all. 
 
 7. In all this there is the one God, Creator and 
 Father of all. His sovereignty has in it the purpose 
 that all should seek the Iyord. The one responsibility 
 of all men clearly shows the one divine purpose for 
 the salvation of all. 
 
 IV. Universal Subjection Through Christ. 
 
 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, 
 after our likeness ; and let them have dominion over 
 the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the 
 cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing 
 that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his 
 own image, in the image of God created he him ; male and 
 female created he them. And God blessed them, and God 
 said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the 
 earth, and subdue it ; and have dominion over the fish of the 
 sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing 
 that moveth upon the earth." Gen. i. 26-28. 
 
 ''When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, 
 the moon and stars, which thou hast ordained ; what is man, 
 that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man, that thou 
 visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than 
 the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. 
 Thou madest him to have* dominion over the works of thy 
 hands ; thou hast put all things under his feet." Ps. viii. 3-6. 
 
 "But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is 
 man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that 
 thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the 
 angels ; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst 
 set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast put all 
 things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all 
 jn subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under 
 him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 
 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the 
 angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and 
 honor ; that he by the grace of God should taste of death for 
 every man." Heb. ii. 6-9. 
 
MR. HITCHES* SECOND SPEECH. £1 
 
 I . By virtue of the Divine Image in which mart 
 was created he is given domi?iion over all the earth. 
 
 2. This is man as the race, wliom God created to 
 dwell an all the face of the earth, with the task to sub-- 
 due it. 
 
 3. So completely universal was this subjection, that 
 there was ?iolhing left that was not put under him. 
 
 4. This purposed subjection is not fully accom- 
 plished. "We see not yet all things put under him." 
 
 5 «,But we see the sure means, and the certain proof 
 of its final consummation. "We see Jesus who tasted 
 death for every man/' 
 
 6 As it is man the race to whom is given this uni- 
 versal dominion, yet to be consummated through 
 Jesus, so he tasted of death for every man. And so 
 amid all these universals, his death is for all men uni- 
 versally. "There is nothing that is not put under 
 him." And because this work is not yet done, is no 
 proof that it never will be; for we have sure proof of 
 its final accomplishment. — [Time expired. 
 
 MR. DAILY'S SECOND REPLY. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
 men: — Like my brother, I have never learned to beat 
 a retreat. So it is very likely there will be no retreat 
 during this discussion unless one or the other of us 
 learns something new. In explaining what he means 
 by the term, human family, he says he knows of but 
 one human family, and then says that the body, which 
 
3^ FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 was formed of the dust of the ground, does not form 
 the essential part of man. The only human family of 
 which he knows anything about, then, is a family of 
 invisible spirits, which he calls the essential part. In 
 beholding the congregation before me, I either see 
 human beings or I do not. According to the position 
 of my opponent I do not see human beings and never 
 have seen any, and no one else ever has, for they are 
 invisible. The Scriptures teach that God created 
 man of the dust of the ground, after which he 
 breathed into the man he had thus created the breath 
 of life, and the man who was created of the dust be- 
 come a living soul. He was called man before he re- 
 ceived the breath of life. In contradiction to this 
 Brother Hughes says the body is not the essential part 
 at all. In reference to the creation of man it is 
 declared, "male and female created he them." Is 
 there distinction of sex in the spirit world? We are 
 all born of Adam, but if his position is correct we are 
 not to consider that we are born of Adam as human 
 bodies, for the multiplication would then result in the 
 production of a family of spirits. Paul says the first 
 man is of the earth earthy. You find a man before 
 the first man, if you can. 
 
 "God is the Father of the whole human family," he 
 says, "not because he created them, but because he 
 created their spirits in his own image." Where does 
 the Bible say that he created the spirits only in his 
 image ? The position that God is the Father of the 
 whole human family, and that he is the Father of 
 spirits only, shows that he believes the human family 
 to consist of a family of spirits only. I have a ques- 
 
SLR. DAILY'S SECOND REPLY. 33 
 
 tion for him right here . Does sin attach to the spirits 
 of mankind or to the flesh ? If he answers this I have 
 something more on that point. When I taught school 
 I always tried to keep my pupils expecting something 
 new. In this way I kept up an interest in the work. 
 Do you believe that God punishes all for the sins 
 they commit as much as they deserve to be punished ? 
 If so, how does he punish them ? In their physical, 
 bodily nature, by the infliction of pain and suffering, 
 or in their conscience, or both ? 
 
 In reference to the love of God, he argues that God 
 loved the whole world and sent his Son to save the 
 world. The passage on which he attempts to base this 
 argument teaches that whosoever believeth in Jesus 
 should not perish but have everlasting life. This 
 shows that salvation is restricted and not universal ! 
 If universalism had been true, Jesus would have said 
 that all the human family would finally believe in him 
 and be saved. To prove by this passage that all will 
 be saved, brother Hughes must prove that all will be- 
 lieve on Christ. This he cannot do ! I deny that the 
 term "whole world" in this text means every individ- 
 ual, every human being. I also deny that all will be- 
 lieve on Christ, and de?nand the proof ! 
 
 As to the declaration of Scripture that God is a con- 
 suming fire, and that vengeance belongs to him, I will 
 say that as this applies to those who are born again, 
 it is to be considered as purifying the gold \>\ destroy- 
 ing the dross, but in the case of the wicked, there is 
 no gold to be purified for ' l they are together become 
 unprofitable" (Rom. iii. 12.), their "end is to be 
 burned" (Heb. vi. S.j, and they are to be sent away 
 
34 FIRST PROPOSITION, 
 
 "into everlasting fire" (Matt. xxv. 41.). 
 
 The case of Jacob and Esau, my opponent thinks, 
 refers to the Jews and Edomites, and not to .the elec- 
 tion of individuals. But the apostle uses this to 
 illustrate the doctrine of election — the election of indi- 
 viduals. "Neither because they are the children of 
 Abraham, are they all children (children of God): but 
 in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which 
 are the children of the flesh, these are not the chil- 
 ren of God: but the children of the promise are count- 
 ed for the seed." The inspired writer then proceeds 
 to illustrate this election of the children'of promise by 
 speaking of the choice made of Isaac and not Ishmael. 
 and of Jacob and not Esau. That these children of 
 promise are individuals and not nations, is shown by 
 Paul's statement in Gal. iv. 28: "Now we, brethren, as 
 Isaac was, are the children of promise." Brother 
 Hughes says, "God hates no one in time. He will 
 hate no one in eternity." God himself said, "Jacob 
 have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Whom shall 
 we believe? Brother Hughes, or God? As God 
 loved Jacob, but hated Esau, he does not love all alike, 
 so the argument, based upon the mere assumption that 
 he does, falls ! 
 
 He says he did not assume that God is the Father of 
 all because he created them, but that he proved that he 
 is the Father of all because he created them in his 
 image. That makes him their Creator, and not their 
 Father 1 So I still say he merely assumed it without 
 proof I If all are his children because he created them 
 in his image, then there could be no necessity for sin- 
 ners to be born again. I repeat there is absolutely no 
 
kR. DAILV'S SECOND R^PLY. 35 
 
 reason to be shown why men should be born again on 
 the supposition that all are already his children. 
 Resemblance does not make us his children. If my 
 child resembles me his resemblance may be an evidence 
 of that relation, but it is birth that makes the relation. 
 
 The statement that Adam was a son of God is no 
 proof that all men are his children. The Jews were 
 all the children of Abraham by natural relationship, 
 but only those who were born of God, or born again, 
 who were therefore of the faith of Abraham, were 
 considered the children of God, and the promised 
 spiritual seed of Abraham. "He is not a Jew which 
 is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which 
 is outward in the flesh, but he is a Jew which is one 
 inwardly." These inward Jews were the children of 
 God. Those who were Jews outwardly were not. 
 Jesus would have told the Jews they were all the chil- 
 dren of God, together with all men, if that had been 
 true. The fact that he did not, together with the 
 fact that such a statement is not found in all the word 
 of God, is positive proof of the falsity of Brother 
 Hughes' position. 
 
 He says the elect are not saved now, and asks what 
 proof there is that they ever will be. This is but a 
 futile attempt to dodge my reply to his argument based 
 upon the fact that God is love and the assumption that 
 he loves all alike. He argued that God is love, there- 
 fore all will be holy and happy. I argued from the 
 same premise that God is love, therefore all men are 
 now holy and happy. The elect are saved in this life, 
 for "He hath saved us and called us, not according 
 to our works, but according to his own purpose 
 
$6 PIRST*PROi>OStTlON . 
 
 and grace which was given us in Christ before the 
 world began." Brother Hughes believes that all will 
 be saved when punished enough, some not being saved 
 for ages after others, making the salvation of all to 
 come through punishment inflicted upon them. 
 
 Paul's statement to the people of Athens, "We are 
 his offspring," implies, if taken literally, that he is 
 merely our Creator ; if taken spiritually, it implies 
 that we are born again, and therefore his children. 
 The latter implication would embrace only such as are 
 born of God, including the apostle himself. But he 
 calls upon all men everywhere to repent. Suppose he 
 does; will all repent? Will all men ever repent, turn 
 from their sins, and seek God? Where is the proof 
 that they will ? 
 
 He argued there would be universal subjection 
 through Christ, basing his argument upon the state- 
 ment that Christ had tasted death for every man. I 
 ask him to tell us what effect Christ's tasting of death 
 for men had. How does Christ save men ? What 
 did he do to save them ? From what does he save 
 them ? He made the sweeping assertion that Christ 
 is the Saviour of all men. I ask him to tell us how 
 Christ saves, and from what he saves. Does he save 
 from any punishment due to their sins ? Does he save 
 them from sinning in this life ? Does he save them 
 from death or hell ? If he answers I will give some 
 further attention to that argument. 
 
 I had not finished my second negative argument 
 when my time expired. I quoted Matt. xxv. 41, 
 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, 
 Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, pre- 
 
MR. DAILY'S SECOND REPLY. 37 
 
 pared for the devil and his angels." Why is the term 
 everlasting fire used here if it does not mean everlast- 
 ing fire? It is said in the 32d verse, that before him 
 shall all nations be gathered, at the time of his coming 
 in his glory and all his holy angels with him. All 
 nations have never yet been gathered before him. All 
 nations can never be gathered before him till the 
 nations that are to come are born, and all the nations 
 that have been are resurrected from the dead. At 
 that time he will say, "Depart" &c. In the 46th 
 verse it is said, "And these shall go away into ever- 
 lasting punishment." 
 
 I now invite the candid attention of the audience 
 and my opponent to the following summary of this 
 argument : 
 
 1 . The proposition implies that there is no everlast- 
 ing fire, that there is no danger of being cast into 
 everlasting fire, that none shall ever depart into ever- 
 lasting fire, and that none shall ever go away into 
 everlasting punishment. 
 
 2. This proposition cannot be true if the Saviour's 
 language is true. But the Saviour's language is true. 
 
 3. Therefore this proposition is not true, and so 
 all the human family will not be finally brought to 
 enjoy a state of endless holiness and happiness. 
 
 Negative Argument III. My third argument against 
 this proposition is that my opponent, in denying the 
 resurrection of the natural bodies of the human family, 
 occupies positions that are contradictory. It is not 
 my purpose to introduce a discussion of the second 
 proposition at this time, but merely to offer as an argu 
 ment against this proposition that it cannot be true if 
 
38 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 a denial of the resurrection of the natural bodies of 
 the human family can be sustained. 
 
 The persons or natural bodies I now see before me, 
 are members of the human family. Your bodies form 
 an essential, component part of your being. If these 
 bodies return to the dust, and are never raised, then 
 an essential, component part of the members of the 
 human family will never be brought to enjoy a state 
 of endless holiness and happiness. This is a dilemma 
 from which I think my opponent cannot escape. It 
 remains to be seen if he can. 
 
 Negative Argument IV. My fourth argument is 
 that the doctrine that all the human family shall be 
 brought to enjoy a state of endless holiness and happi- 
 ness, meets the approval of the wicked heart of man ; 
 that it finds an approving response in such a heart, and 
 is understood, loved and cherished by wicked people. 
 Understand I am not asserting that all who under- 
 stand, love and cherish this doctrine, are wicked, but 
 only that the wicked do understand ', love and cherish it , 
 as a doctrine suited to the gratification of their natural 
 desire for sin and wickedness. The unchanged heart is 
 "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked," 
 and out of it "proceed evil thoughts, murders, adul- 
 teries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." 
 Such a heart must be entirely at variance with God's 
 pure law, and wholly opposed to the divine principles 
 of the gospel, for it can love that only which is assim- 
 ilated to its likeness. The gospel presents the require 
 ment of self-denial, renunciation of sin. Hence the 
 wicked heart, the one that is in love with wickedness, 
 hates the gospel. It is for this reason that wicked 
 
MR. DAILY'S SECOND REPLY. 39 
 
 people have despised those who preached the gospel 
 and have put them to death. This proposition allows 
 all that a wicked heart can love or desire without any 
 hazard of a final consequence! Then there can be no rea- 
 son for the wickedest heart on earth to despise the doc- 
 trine of this proposition and those who advocate it . 
 L,et a wicked person be pursuaded that this doctrine is 
 true, and he will love it and be happy in the belief of it , 
 because it allows him to continue in the love of sin and 
 the delightful practice of it with the full confidence and 
 belief that he will be finally brought to enjoy a state of 
 endless holiness and happiness! 
 
 1 . Any system of religious doctrine that can be 
 understood, loved and cherished by a wicked heart, 
 must be false in its character and displeasing to God. 
 
 2 . The system of doctrine expressed by this propo- 
 sition is understood, loved and cherished by some 
 hearts that are wicked. 
 
 3. Therefore, the system of doctrine expressed by 
 this proposition is false in its character and displeasing 
 to God. 
 
 Negative Argument V My fifth negative argument 
 is based upon the fact that the Universalist church as 
 an organization is of modern origin. 
 
 Belcher, in his "Religious Denominations," says, 
 "The denomination of which we are now writing 
 (Universalists), seems to have had its origin in Eng- 
 land somewhat more than a century ago, when the 
 Rev. John Kelly collected a congregation in the city 
 of London. < As held by Mr. Kelly and his people, it 
 was combined with a modified form of the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, and it is probable that many individuals 
 
40 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 among Trinitarians even at present hold to it." "The 
 doctrines of Universalism were preached in this coun- 
 try quite as soon as they became prevalent in Eng- 
 land." "The chief agent in its extension was the 
 Rev. John Murray, who emigrated from England in 
 1770. He was a follower of Mr. Kelly, already men- 
 tioned, and on his arrival in this country zealously 
 preached these views in N. J., Perm., N. Y., R.I., 
 and Mass. As he collected his followers together, and 
 organized them into societies, he may be regarded as 
 the founder of the body." 
 
 In a work entitled "A Brief Statement of Universa- 
 list belief," by H. R. Nye, a noted Universalist , an 
 admission is made in the following language : "There 
 is a distinct, separate body of Christian believers called 
 the Universalist church. It was organized a little 
 more than a hundred years ago." "The founders of 
 this church were not Atheists." Page 10. No such 
 an organization as the Universalist church was known 
 one hundred and fifty years ago, or prior to that time. 
 
 If Christ and his apostles had taught the doctrine 
 of this proposition, then the church founded by them 
 would have been a Universalist church ; and as he 
 declares the gates of hell should not prevail against 
 his church, it would have existed through all ages to 
 the present. But no such a church is known to the 
 writers of history prior to the time of Murray. 
 
 God gave us the Bible as a plain book to instruct us 
 in the religious life and the true doctrine of salvation. 
 It is intended to be a divine guide to the people in all 
 ages. Great scholars have studied and written about 
 it. Many have loved it so devotedly as to die for it. 
 
MR. DAILY'S SECOND REPLY. 4 1 
 
 Yet if the doctrine of this proposition be true, not one 
 of them ever understood its teaching until modern 
 Universalists arose up to expound it. The true church 
 did not exist from the days of Christ till the days of 
 Murray. How very remarkable this is! 
 
 1. If the doctrine of this proposition be true, that 
 all the human family will be finally brought to enjoy a 
 state of endless holiness and happiness, then the 
 Universalist church was founded by Christ in the be- 
 ginning of the Christian era. 
 
 2 . But the Universalist church was not founded 
 till the latter part of the 18th century, and was never 
 known to history till that time. 
 
 3. Therefore, this proposition, w T hich states a dis- 
 tinctive doctrine of that church, is not the doctrine of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 Negative Argument VI. My next argument against 
 the proposition is that all do not become the servants 
 of God in this life, and do not have their fruit unto 
 holiness, and are therefore not made free from sin and 
 do not enjoy in the end everlasting life. Rom. vi: 
 22: "But now being made free from sin, and become 
 servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness and 
 the end everlasting life." I argue from this text that 
 all who will ever have their fruit unto holiness are 
 made free from sin here and are brought to love the 
 service of God. Many die in love with sin, delight- 
 ing in the practice of it and despising the service of 
 God as lcngas they live here. As such are not made 
 free from sin here, the}' do not have their fruit unto 
 holiness and the end everlasting life. As many die 
 without being made free from sin, and as there is not 
 
42 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 the slightest proof any moral change will ever be 
 effected in such after death, it follows that they will 
 never have their fruit unto holiness and the end ever- 
 lasting life. 
 
 Negative Argument VII. My seventh negative argu- 
 ment is that no one can ever see or enter into the king- 
 dom of God without being born again, and that as the 
 essential evidences of that new birth are faith and love, 
 we know that many die and go into eternity without 
 being born again. 
 
 John iii. 3 : ' 'Except a man be born again he cannot see 
 the kingdom of God." 
 
 John iii. 5 : "Except a man be born of water and of the 
 Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " 
 
 The creation of man in the image of God (not his 
 spirit merely, but the man himself) constituted him 
 the creature of God. Being born again constitutes 
 him a child. Thus God's people are declared to be 
 ''born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor 
 of the will of man, but of God." 
 
 I John v. 1 : "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ 
 is born of God : and every one that loveth him that begat, 
 loveth him also that is begotten of him. " 
 
 It is God that begets, which constitutes him the 
 Father of those that are begotten or born of him. 
 
 t John iv. 7: "Beloved, let us love one auother, for love 
 is of God : and every one that loveth is born of God, and 
 knoweth God." 
 
 All men do not have faith. All men do not love 
 God, for it is said, "He that loveth not knoweth not 
 God." Since all do not have faith in God or love for 
 him, all are not born again. Those who are not born 
 again and die in that state, cannot see the kingdom of 
 
MR, HUGHES THIRD SPEECH. 43 
 
 God or enter into it. , Therefore all will not be finally 
 brought to enjoy a state of endless holiness and 
 happiness. — {Time expired. 
 
 MR. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators Ladies and Gentle- 
 men: — I would like it to be understood by the audi- 
 ence right here, that I have not said in this discussion 
 that man is not body. What I did say, was that the 
 spiritual man is the part that was made in the image 
 of God, and that the body was not. To that I stand ; 
 and so a great deal my respected brother said on that 
 subject was shooting wide of the mark. He quoted 
 the passage ; "The first man is of the earth earthy." 
 That was said of man as he is now ; but as ' ' God is 
 the Father of spirits,' 1 ' it is the "inward man," that is 
 the child of God. St. Paul says ; "There is an out- 
 ward man and an inward man," II Cor. iv. 16; and 
 the question is which of the two is made in the divine 
 image? Now just as sure as "God is the Father of 
 spirits," and the "God of the spirits of all flesh," so 
 sure is it, that he is the Father of all mankind. And 
 so it is said, "But to us there is but the one God the 
 Father. ' ' There could not be a clearer statement of 
 the Fatherhood of God, as a universal truth. 
 
 He wants to know if I believe the souls of men are 
 sinful. Yes I do. I do not believe the flesh is sinful ; 
 though I believe that much that prompts to sin arises 
 from the animal nature. But it is not sin till the 
 rational nature consents to it, and then it is sin. 
 
44 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 He inquires if I believe that God punishes every 
 man as much as his sin deserves. I most certainly do. 
 inasmuch as I believe that men will be rewarded ac- 
 cording to their works. Does he believe God will 
 punish the elect, or Jesus in the place of the elect as 
 much as their sins deserve? Will he answer? If it 
 be a fact that man's sins, or the elect's sins were trans- 
 ferred or put on Christ, does not that make him the 
 real sinner? 
 
 If hating does not mean hating what does it mean ? 
 When the words hate and anger are applied to God 
 they cannot mean the same as when applied to man. 
 God cannot be subject to human passions, as he is an 
 unchangeably perfect being. In Rom. i. 18, we are 
 told that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven 
 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." 
 And Dr. Adam Clark says, "The wrath of God does 
 not mean any uneasy passion in the divine being, but 
 the displeasure of his righteousness." God in his 
 loving nature is ever opposed to sin, and his anger is 
 directed towards it to blot it out and destroy it, and 
 he cannot consistently perpetuate it to all eternity. 
 
 Mr. Daily says a Jew may be one in two senses ; 
 that he who is one outwardly may not be one inwardly. 
 That is what I have been trying to tell you, my friends. 
 But he says resemblance does not make children . But 
 I say that resemblance in character does make children 
 in a characteristic sense. So Jesus says, "Love your 
 enemies, do good to them that hate you, that ye may 
 be the children of your Father which is in heaven . ' » 
 To do this makes one the child of the heavenly Fath- 
 er, not in relationship, but in character. 
 
MR, HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 4g 
 
 He wants to know if I believe that all men will 
 repent. I most certainly do, as one of the necessary 
 steps to the final salvation of all. But again he asks 
 what good Christ's death does for man. I answer : It 
 manifests and commends God's love to mankind : 
 
 "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because 
 that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we 
 might live through him. ' ' I John iv. 9. 
 
 "God commendeth his love toward us in that while we 
 were yet sinners Christ died for us. " Rom. v. 8. 
 
 It brings life and immortality to light. II Tim. i. 10. 
 And it appeals to men to be reconciled to God. II Cor. 
 v. 20, 21. It does not save man from death, for all 
 must die ; nor absolutely from sinning here, for all 
 men sin and come short of the glory of God. But its 
 work is begun here. Many are reconciled to God, 
 and the good work begun will finally be consummated: 
 for as Christ was lifted upon the cross, "he will draw 
 all men unto him," John xii. 32. 
 
 He quotes Matt. xxv. 41, "Depart ye cursed into 
 everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels." 
 Undoubtedly he will have use for this passage on his 
 proposition, so I pass it here with a single remark, I 
 do not understand the word everlasting here to mean 
 without end, and at the proper time will show it. He 
 makes no argument on the text, and he is not to rely 
 on the mere sound of the word. He is here to prove 
 his positions, and not for mere assumption. 
 
 I come now to something I wish was not in this 
 friendly discussion, "that Universalism finds its lodge- 
 ment in sinful hearts." I deny that Universalism 
 contributes to sin in an}' way. And I want to ask 
 him a question right here, and that is, Does he believe 
 
46 pirs¥ proposition. 
 
 1 n the doctrine of total depravity ? If so, please ex- 
 plain how Universalism can make the man who is 
 totally depraved any worse ? Would the preaching of 
 God's universal love, and that Christ died for him, 
 make him any more than totally depraved ? 
 
 "But the Universalist church is a modern church, 
 not more than one hundred and fifty years old." Well, 
 I have never been egotistical enough to believe that 
 the church to which I belong is all the church there is. 
 There are good men in all churches, and there has 
 never been a time since Christ's church was founded, 
 that there were not Christians in the world. There 
 were Universalists in the ancient times. The first 
 Christian school was at Alexandria. Clement and 
 Origen were among its first and most noted teachers, 
 and both were believers in the final salvation of all 
 mankind. That goes back to a very early day. Be- 
 sides there was Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory of 
 Nyssa, and others down to the time of St. Augustine, 
 who said there were "very many" who believed in 
 Universalism in his day. So it is no new doctrine. 
 
 I want to ask my brother if it is true that his church 
 will expel a member for believing that Christ died for 
 Jail men, and so for believing that all will be saved ? 
 And if it be true that Christ did not die for all men, 
 is it then possible for any of those for whom he did not 
 die to be saved ? Of course I expect him to answer in 
 the negative. For they are not of the elect and were 
 doomed to damnation before they were born ; and who 
 then is to blame for their fate foreordained before the 
 world was ? Has Universalism contributed in any 
 way to it ? I call attention to the fact that brother 
 
MR. HUGHES* THXTd SPEECH, 47 
 
 Daily prosecutes this discussion on the grounds of 
 Arminianism, just as though men have some agency 
 in their salvation, which he does not believe, if I un- 
 derstand his creed rightly. 
 
 God, he says, gave us the Bible, a plain book, and 
 no one understands it as do modern Universalists. 
 But how man}^ understand it as he does ? Does not 
 the great majority of Christians understand the Bible 
 to teach that Christ died for all ? And that God sent 
 his Son to save all ? Besides there are a great many 
 in the so called Orthodox churches, that believe that 
 there will be an opportunity for salvation in the future 
 life, as all do not have a fair chance here. This I 
 very well know ; but what is the difference so far as 
 my friend is concerned ? This much, it shows that 
 there is a growing sentiment in the Christian church 
 in the belief that God will deal fairly with his children i 
 and that Christ's doctrine goes over into the future 
 state, and is coming nearer to the Universalist posi- 
 tion. I come now to my Fifth Argument. 
 
 V. Mission and Ministry of Christ. 
 
 In proof of nry position, I read the following pas. 
 sages of Scripture: 
 
 ''For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the 
 world, but that the world through him might be saved." 
 Jno. iii. 17. 
 
 "We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son 
 to be the Saviour of the world. " I Jno. iv. 14. 
 
 "(•""or the Son of man is come to seek and save that which 
 was lost. " Luke xix. 10. 
 
 "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, 
 that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of 
 whom I am chief." I Tim. i. 15. 
 
4$ first proposition. 
 
 i. The purpose of Christ's Mission and Ministry 
 is the salvation of the world. It is not to be confined 
 to the elect or any special class. It is to save the sin- 
 ful, and "all have sinned and come short of the glory 
 of God." Rom. iii. 23. The question turns in this 
 discussion not on Christ's ability to save, but on how 
 many he came to save : for if: he came to save all, then 
 my friend must admit all will be saved ! Who believes 
 that? Why, my friend's whole church believes that. 
 And as these texts prove the universality of Christ's 
 mission, so all will be saved. 
 
 2. To this end Christ is Lord of mankind, "For 
 to this end Christ both died and rose again that he 
 might be Lord both of the dead and the living." Rom. 
 xiv. 9. The dead and the living include all in this 
 world and all in the spirit world. To be Lord over all 
 is to have rule and dominion over all. And so Jesus 
 claims that, "All authority was given into his hands 
 in heaven and earth." Matt, xxviii. 18. And St. 
 Paul affirms that, "he shall change our vile body and 
 fashion it like unto his glorious body, according to 
 the working whereby he is able to subdue all things 
 unto himself." Phil. iii. 21. And we have not only 
 affirmed here universal dominion and authority, but 
 also the ability of Jesus to subdue all things unto him- 
 self, which seems conclusive and final. 
 
 3. For the full accomplishment of his mission, 
 Christ's ministry is addressed to men both here and 
 in the spirit world. 
 
 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for 
 the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death 
 in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which also he 
 
Mk, HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 49 
 
 went and preached unto the spirits in prison ; which sometime 
 were disobedient, when the long suffering of God waited in 
 the days of Noah. " I Peter iii. 18-20. 
 
 "Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the 
 quick and the dead. For, for this cause was the gospel 
 preached to them that are dead, that they might be judged 
 according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in 
 the Spirit." I Peter iv. 5, 6. 
 
 1 . The reason of Christ's ministry to the dead is that 
 "they might live according to God in the Spirit,' ' which 
 is salvation. Christ's judgment is a universal one ; 
 he judges by his word, and this necessitates a univer- 
 sal proclamation of the gospel. For men are not 
 judged by a gospel they never heard. He cannot 
 judge those who have died without a knowledge of him 
 Iryhis word if they never heard that word. It would 
 be unjust to hold men responsible for principles of 
 which the}- have no knowledge. 
 
 2 . Christ will accomplish the purpose of his mission 
 and ministry. 
 
 "And many more believed because of his own word; and 
 said unto the woman, Mow we believe, not because of thy 
 saying : for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this 
 is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. ' ' John iv. 41-42 
 
 Now that was the conclusion of those who heard 
 Christ's own preaching. They had first believed on 
 the report given by the woman of Samaria, but now 
 they believed because the) 7 had heard him for them- 
 selves ; that he was "the Christ, the Saviour of the 
 world. 
 
 I now advance to my sixth argument : 
 
 VI. Christ will Draw all Men to Himself. 
 
 "Now is the judgment of this world ; now shall the prince 
 of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the 
 
go FIRST PROPOSITION, 
 
 earth, will draw all men unto me. ' ' John xii. 41, 32. 
 
 i. The phrase "all men" is to be taken in its full 
 literal sense. There is no reason in the text or context 
 for its limitation. By being "lifted up" he refers to 
 his death upon the cross, and as "he tasted death for 
 every man," so he will draw all men nnto him, for he 
 died for all. 
 
 2. By drawing all men, he means teaching them, 
 influencing them by his word and Spirit. This is 
 evident from his words in John vi. 44. 45 : 
 
 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath 
 sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 
 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of 
 God. Every man, therefore, that hath heard and learned of 
 the Father, cometh unto me. ' ' 
 
 Now it is the teaching of Jesus which draws men to 
 him ; and his truth is the very power of God, and 
 omnipotent, the time will come when all men will be 
 drawn to him. 
 
 VII. All men will come to Christ. 
 
 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and he 
 that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came 
 down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of 
 him that sent me, and this is the will of the Father that 
 hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should 
 lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." 
 John vi. 37-39. 
 
 1 . To come to Christ is to believe in him and 
 become his disciple. It is to so come to him as not 
 to be cast out. 
 
 2. All for whom Christ died, and all whom he 
 came to save, are given to him. For he came down 
 from heaven to do his Father's will : and "God will 
 have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowl- 
 
MR, HUGHES THIRD SPEECH. 51 
 
 edge of the truth." I Tim. ii. 4. "The Father lov- 
 eth the Son, and hath given all things into his hands. 
 John iii. 36. So the sure conclusion is that all will 
 come to Christ. 
 
 VIII. Universal Reconciliation to God. 
 
 My eighth argument is based on those passages 
 which teach a universal reconciliation to God. 
 
 "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus 
 judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that 
 he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth 
 live unto themselves, but into him that died for them, and 
 rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after 
 the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, 
 yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any 
 man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things have pass- 
 ed away, and behold all things have become new. And all 
 things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus 
 Christ, and hath given unto us the ministry of reconciliation: 
 To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto him 
 self, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath com- 
 mitted unto us the word of reconciliation." II Cor. v. 14-19. 
 
 "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness 
 dwell ; and having made peace through the blood of his cross, 
 by him to reconcile all things to himself ; by him, I say, 
 whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." Col- 
 i. 19, 20. 
 
 1 . The word world and the phrase all things in 
 earth and heaven, comprise all mankind, all for whom 
 Christ died, and "he died for all" universally, for "all 
 were dead." Will my friend deny the moral depravity 
 of all mankind? If not, then he consents to the 
 moral death of all, and so to the death of Christ for 
 all. 
 
 2. All the reconciled are saved, saved by "his 
 ministry" arid "word of reconciliation." They are 
 
£2 FIRST PROPOSITION^ 
 
 "in Christ," "new creatures," and "live unto Christ." 
 3. This reconciliation will be finally as universal 
 as is the phrases "the world" and "all things in 
 heaven and in earth." — [Time Expired. 
 
 MR. DAISY'S THIRD REPLY. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
 men: — We are getting along very nicely with our dis- 
 cussion. I predict that wq shall continue to get along 
 nicely, and that this will be a very agreeable debate. 
 
 It becomes my duty to give attention tc the speech 
 to which you have so patiently listened. It can 
 hardly be expected of me, of course, to give particu- 
 lar attention to everything that my brother says, but 
 I shall give attention to all that he offers in the way 
 of argument that is pertinent to the question we are 
 discussing. He has made the argument that God so 
 loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, 
 and that the purpose of sending Christ into the world 
 was that the world, all the human family, should be 
 saved. I want you to observe, however, that the 
 Saviour declares in the text, that whosoever believeth 
 in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 
 But he says all the human family will ultimately be- 
 lieve. Then why did not Christ say so ? If that had 
 been true he would have said, God so loved the world 
 that he gave his only begotten Son, that all the hu- 
 man family should ultimately believe, and not perish 
 but have everlasting life ! My brother's position that 
 
MR. DAILY'S THIRD REPLY. 53 
 
 all will finally believe is a mere assumption of his 
 without the shadow of proof. He accuses me of 
 prosecuting this debate on the grounds of Arminian- 
 ism. I deny the charge. I have not advocated a 
 single Arminian principle. He also says all will re- 
 pent as one of the necessary steps to the final salvation 
 of all. This is another assumption of his without 
 proof. 
 
 I now want to notice the term "world," as given in 
 the passage alluded to. Our brother puts a great deal 
 of stress on that, and grew very warm in arguing that 
 the term world necessarily signifies the whole race of 
 mankind. I read this in the word of God, "All the 
 ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the 
 Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall wor- 
 ship before thee." Ps. xxii. 27. 'All the kindreds of 
 the nations' ' shows that the term world is used in a 
 representative sense. "All the ends of the world shall 
 remember and turn unto the Lord, and all the kin- 
 dreds of the nations shall worship before him , ' ' yet 
 I read in God's word also where it is said that "the 
 wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the na- 
 tions that forget God." Ps. ix. 17. I read also in 
 Rev. xiii. 3, where it is declared that "all the world 
 wondered after the beast." I quote these passages to 
 show that the term "world" is of ten used not to in- 
 clude all the members of the human family, all the 
 human race, but is used to embrace all the nations of 
 the earth representatively. So when the Saviour said 
 "God so loved the world" he taught that God not 
 only loved his people among the Jewish nation, but 
 all of his people of all nations, Gentiles as well as 
 
54 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 Jews. Our Saviour said in John xvii. 9, "I pray not 
 for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; 
 for they are thine." Will my opponent say that 
 Christ meant all the human family by the use of the 
 term "world?" 
 
 Now let ur come to some of his other points. He 
 says man is a child of God because he was created in 
 his image, and insists that it is the spirit of man only 
 that is thus created. The Bible says God made man 
 in his image ; brother Hughe;-; says he made only the 
 spirit of man in his image ! If that were true, it 
 would render the spirit a creatu? ; of God and not his 
 child. But that is not only an assumption without 
 proof, it is a positive contradiction of Bible teaching. 
 »'S.o God created man in in his own image, i;i the im- 
 age of God created he him; male and female ciealed he 
 them." This shows that it was man in his lodily 
 person that was created in the image of God as male 
 and female, and not the man s spirit merely. In his 
 created state of primeval innocency, as he came from 
 the hand of his Maker, he was good and very good, 
 being sinless, and having a pure conscience, and hav- 
 ing dominion over the inferior works of creation ; but 
 when he sinned he lost that divine image, and became 
 a rebel against God. 
 
 Brother Hughes says that the spirit, and not the 
 flesh, is sinful. I ask him now if punishment is in- 
 flicted on the body for the sins of the spirit. If so, 
 why? How can a sinful spirit become pure and holy 
 by punisment inflicted on the body? He says all sin- 
 ners are punished as much as they deserve to be for 
 the sins they commit. Them is there any such thing 
 
MR. DAILY S THIRD REPLY. 55 
 
 as forgiveness? Does the Iyord ever forgive any sins, 
 if all sinners are punished as much as they deserve ? 
 Let me illustrate : Suppose this brother ows me ten 
 dollars; and I go to him and say, "You owe me ten 
 dollars; I forgive you the debt, but you must pay me 
 every cent of it . " Would there be any f orgivenss in 
 that? Suppose God should say, I intend to forgive 
 you, but I shall punish you for every sin. My bro- 
 ther cannot show that there is any forgiveness on 
 such hypothesis. I take the position that God does 
 not have mercy on any sinner of Adam's race accor- 
 ding to his position, for to be merciful is to treat one 
 better than he deserves. More about that later. 
 
 The first man is of the earth earthy. He says that 
 applies to man as he is now. But he is trying to 
 prove that the whole human family is to be finally 
 holy and happy. I suppose he must not mean the 
 human family as it is now ! It is the body that is of 
 the earth earthy, which is the man that God created 
 of the dust of the earth. Was he not called man be- 
 fore God breathed into him the breath of life ? I 
 want him to come to that question. I may be a little 
 hard to satisfy, but I feel that this congregation is 
 not satisfied with his evasions on that point. Was 
 not man created male and female ? Are we not born 
 of that man as his descendante ? As such, are we not 
 of the earth earthy ? As the human family, the off- 
 spring of Adam, are we not fleshly beings, born of 
 the flesh ? And if that which is created of the dust 
 and born of the flesh never goes to heaven, how is it 
 that the whole human family will be finally holy and 
 happy ? 
 
5 6 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 With reference to God's loving Jacob and hating 
 Esau, the position my brother has taken is that hat- 
 ing does not mean hating as applied to God. Then 
 how do we know that loving means loving as applied 
 to him. This is only an attempt to avade the force of 
 my proof that his position that God loves all alike is 
 false. That text proves that God does not love all 
 alike, and there is no evading it. So his argument 
 based on the love of God falls. He says God's nature 
 is ever opposed to sin, and his anger is ever directed 
 toward it to blot it out and destroy it. How does he 
 do this ? By punishment inflicted on sinners ? That 
 cannot be, for punishment will never render them in- 
 nocent. 
 
 A Jew who is one inwardly, is a child of God' hav- 
 ing experienced the new birth or circumcision of the 
 heart; while one who is merely a Jew outwardly, is 
 not a child of God. If all were children of God by 
 natural creation, then to be a Jew outwardly would 
 have been sufficient, and there would have been no 
 necessity of any ever being born again or circumcised 
 in heart. 
 
 How does the death of Christ commend the love of 
 God to mankind from the standpoint of Univer- 
 salism? He did not save any from sinning, or from 
 punishment, or from death, or from hell, or from any- 
 thing else, according to the theory of my opponent ! 
 The death of Christ amounts to nothing in his sys- 
 tem ! He had as well not have died, if Universalism 
 be true ! He says, "Many are reconciled to God, and 
 the good work begun will finally be consumated." If 
 all are punished in order to their reconciliation, what 
 
MR. DAILY S THIRD REPLY. 57 
 
 does^the death of Christ, or any other work of Christ's 
 have to do with their reconciliation? Not one thing! 
 
 Referring to Matt. xxv. 41, where it is said some 
 shall depart into everlasting fire, he says everlasting 
 does not mean everlasting. (Mr. Hughes — "I did 
 not express it that way.") I expected him to say 
 that. Everlasting does not mean without end ! If it 
 doesn't, what does it mean? Could they depart into 
 everlasting fire, if there is no everlasting fire? 
 
 He expresses regret that I intimated, as he says, 
 that Universalism contributes to sin. That is not 
 what I said. It is a misunderstanding, I think. I 
 did not say that all the people who believe in Univer- 
 salism are bad people. I did say that the wickedest 
 man in the world could believe in Universalism and 
 love it, because it allows him to live in sin, and prom- 
 ises that if he dies in the love and practice of sin, he 
 will be just as happy in the end as the best man that 
 ever lived. I have known wicked men to say they 
 believed the doctrine of Universalism, and the manner 
 in which they said it proved to me they loved it. My 
 argument was that a wicked man cannot love the true 
 gospel, cannot know the things of the Spirit of God, 
 because they are spiritually discerned. I Cor. ii. 14. 
 This is proof that the doctrine is false. 
 
 In referring to my argument founded on the fact that 
 the Universalist church is of modern origin, he says 
 there has never been a time since Christ's church was 
 founded that there were not christians in the world, 
 and that there were Universalists in ancient times. 
 That does not touch the argument. He does not deny 
 that his church was founded not more than one hun- 
 
58 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 dred and fifty years ago, and he does not attempt to 
 find a Universalist church in history prior that time. 
 That there were some who held to some form of Uni- 
 versalism is not denied. Nearly every error has had 
 advocates in ages past. My argument was that 
 if Christ and his disciples had taught Universalism, 
 then the church founded by them would have been a 
 Universalist church ; and as Christ said the gates of 
 hell should not prevail against his church, it would 
 have continued as a Universalist church. But no such 
 a denomination ever existed prior to one hundred 
 and fifty years ago. Therefore Christ and his 
 disciples did not teach Universalism. 
 
 Whether or not my church would expel a member 
 for believing Christ died for all, has nothing to do 
 with this question. I am not here to say what my 
 church would fellowship or not fellowship. 
 
 He tries to base an argument on the "Mission and 
 Ministry of Christ," and quotes, "God sent not his 
 Son into the world to condemn the world, but that 
 the world through him might be saved," and, "The 
 Son of man is come to seek and to save that which 
 was lost," &c. These passages do not teach that he 
 was sent to save all the people that are in the world, 
 or all the people that are lost. But I ask him again 
 how Christ saves sinners, what he does to save them, 
 and what he saves them from. He says he does not 
 save them from sinning, or from punishment, or from 
 dying, or from hell. Does he save them at all? If 
 so, how? We want to know what the death of Christ, 
 or his Mission or Ministry, has to do with the salvation 
 of any sinner, according to Universalism! If all are 
 
MR. DAILY'S THIRD RKPI.Y. 59 
 
 the children of God by creation, and he punishes alt 
 for their sins as much as they deserve, and then makes 
 them holy and happy because he has punished them 
 enough, would not all have been saved if Christ had 
 never come ? He cannot show what the Mission and 
 Ministry of Christ has to do in the salvation of any 
 according to his theory. So all his arguments on that 
 go for nothing. 
 
 He argues that Christ is Lord of all mankind, and 
 quoted, "For to this end Christ both died and rose 
 again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and 
 the living." What is it that dies when the spirit 
 leaves the body? If it is the body that dies, then he 
 is Lord of the body, and will bring it forth from 
 death. When Paul says, "He shall change our vile 
 body and fashion it like unto his glorious body," he 
 proved he was Lord of the body that is dead after the 
 spirit leaves it, but that is no proof that all bodies 
 will be so fashioned. 
 
 He argues that Christ's ministry is addressed to 
 men in the spirit world as well as here, and quotes 
 I Peter iii. 9: "By which also he went and preached 
 to the spirits in prison . ' ' When was that ? In the 
 days of Noah. He assumes that "the spirits in pris- 
 on" are the spirits of the dead while in the spirit 
 world. This is the way Universalism builds its argu 
 merits, by assumptions. He then goes to I Peter iv. 
 5, 6: "Who shall give account to him that is ready to 
 judge the quick and the dead. For, for this cause 
 was the gospel preached to them that are dead," &c. 
 Not to them that were dead, but to them that are 
 dead. This is another job of bolstering up. He will 
 
60 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 have a good deal of that to do before he gets through 
 with this discussion. 
 
 In attempting to prove that all the human family 
 will be brought to Christ, he quotes, "And I, if I be 
 lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." 
 The term "men" in this text is not in the origi- 
 nal, and it is therefore italicised in the New Testa- 
 ment to show that it is supplied. The explanation of 
 this is found in John iii. 14 : "And as Moses lifted up 
 the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of 
 man be lifted up, that whosoever belie veth in him 
 should not perish, but have eternal life." He has 
 said the sinner must believe, and as some do not believe 
 in this world they never will believe, unless there is a 
 change in the next world, which can never be shown. 
 The fact is, the restriction clearly indicates that some 
 will never believe. An explanation is also found in 
 Rev. vii. 9, 10 : "And after this I beheld, and, lo, a 
 great multitude which no man could number, of all 
 nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood 
 before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with 
 white robes, and palms in their hands." As these 
 were of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and 
 tongues, all that constitute these classes are not in- 
 cluded. This accords with Rev. v. 9 : "And they 
 sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take 
 the book, and to open the seals thereof : for thou 
 wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood 
 out of every kindred, and people, and nation." As 
 they were redeemed out 0/ every kindred, people and 
 nation, there were some that were not redeemed. 
 The term "all men" is restricted just as "every man" 
 
Mr. daily's third reply. 6i 
 
 is in the following passage : "The law and the proph- 
 ets were until John ; since that time the kingdom of 
 God is preached, and every man presseth into it." 
 
 In regard to the language of Christ: "All that the' 
 Father giveth me shall come tome," I will say that 
 brother Hughes is a scholar and understands the Eng- 
 lish language, and, something more, he knows that 
 the number that shall come is restricted by the lan- 
 guage to those given by the Father. If all persons 
 had been given to Christ, he would not have said, 
 "All that the Father giveth me shall come." He 
 would have said, "The Father giveth all persons to 
 me and they shall come." But Christ also said, 
 "Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath 
 learned of the Father, cometh unto me." This also 
 is restricted. To teach Universalism it should read 
 "Every man hears and learns and comes." Does 
 every body hear? Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews, 
 "Whydoyenot understand my speech? Even be- 
 cause ye cannot hear my words." John viii. 43. God 
 is the teacher, by his own blessed Spirit, in the hearts 
 of his children. He says by the prophet, "I have 
 loved thee with an everlasting love ; therefore with 
 loving kindness have I drawn thee." 
 
 From Col. i. 19, 20, he reasons that all people will 
 be reconciled to Christ. The "all things" in that pas- 
 sage must be considered with very important limita- 
 tions, or it would be made to include the brute crea- 
 tion as well as man. The same form of speech is used 
 in reference to the work of John the Baptist, who was 
 said to be sent to "restore all things." Matt. xvii. n. 
 This is said of him by the prophets, and it received 
 
6a ftms¥ proposition; 
 
 the sanction df Christ by his quoting it. Yet it lS 
 said that some rejected the counsel of God against 
 themselves. L,uke vii. 29, 30. 
 
 "If Christ died for all, then were all dead." If 
 this means that they were dead morally, then their 
 being dead in sins depended upon Christ's dying for 
 them. But man was already dead in sins independent 
 of the death of Christ. This is conclusive proof that 
 such a death is not meant. All he died for were 
 dead because he died for them ; that is, his dying as 
 their substitute, and bearing their sins in his body on 
 the Jtree, stood as their sacrificial offering. "Who 
 his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, 
 that we, being dead to sins, should live unto right- 
 eousness." 
 
 "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
 made alive." The apostle then explains : "But every 
 man in his own order : Christ the first fruits ; after- 
 ward they that are Christ's at his coming." This 
 proves that all will not be Christ's at his coming, for 
 the language is restrictive, and any one who un- 
 derstands the English language knows it. — \Timc 
 expired. 
 
 MR. HUGHES' FOURTH SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
 men: — We have now listened to brother Daily's third 
 speech, and we want to see how much progress he 
 has made, or whether he has made even a little inden- 
 tation in "brother Hughes' argument" or not. Well, 
 
MR. HUGHES* FOURftf SPEECH i 63 
 
 when it is said "whosoever believeth in him shall be 
 saved," that restricts the meaning of the passage to a 
 part of mankind. Not at all. I have not said that 
 the unbeliever is saved or that he will be as long as he 
 is an unbeliever. All my arguments turn on the po- 
 sition that all men will become believers, that Christ 
 will draw all men to him by his word and Spirit ; and 
 all men will come to him. And the argument here is 
 based on the fact that God loved the world and sent 
 his Son to be the Saviour of the world. The work is 
 consummated just as far as men repent and believe, and 
 its final consummation will be when all men "shall bow 
 the knee, and confess his name to the glory of God 
 the Father." 
 
 But he quotes, "The wicked shall be turned into 
 hell and all the nations that forget God." Ps. ix. 17. 
 In the revised version the word Slieol is never trans- 
 lated hell, as here in our Authorized version. And I 
 ask him does that word ever mean a place of endless 
 punishment? If so let him prove it, if he can, and 
 not rely on mere assumption as he does here. It may 
 mean present punishment here, and the presumption 
 is that way. In the verse just before, it is said, "The 
 Lord is known by the judgment he executeth : the 
 wicked is snared in the work of his own hands." God 
 cannot be known now b} T a judgment in the far 
 future, but he can be by a judgment in which . the 
 wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. The 
 text favors punishment here, and if so all right, and 
 if it means punishment hereafter all right, it cannot 
 be endless, for Sheol is to be destroyed, and I ask him 
 if that can mean a place of endless punishment ? 
 
64 first proposition. 
 
 But he wants to know if all the world are the peo- 
 ple of God. Whose people are they then ? Whose 
 people are you before me ? Are you the devil's people? 
 Then you ought to serve him, for he has a right to 
 your services ! If then there is a part of mankind 
 who are the devil's people, totally depraved, then 
 they never can be saved whatever they do, and who 
 is to blame for their eternal misery ? 
 
 "Everlasting does not mean everlasting." When 
 we come to the next proposition , I will give you some 
 proof on that, and I do not propose to take up my 
 time on it now. "But if man is not body, then you 
 never saw man." God is Spirit and you never saw 
 him. And God made man in his own image, and God 
 is the "Father of spirits," so man is spirit as well as 
 body, and you have never seen all of man as you have 
 not seen his spirit. You have seen his body, that is all. 
 
 "No need of being born again if man is a child of 
 God." Now I have taken the ground that man was 
 created in the divine image, and is by virtue of that 
 fact a child of God, though he may have fallen away 
 as all men have, and the new birth is not to restore 
 relationship, but character . • 
 
 Again he says, ' 'Sinful hearts cannot love the gospel: 
 wickedness loves sin." Well, according, to my broth- 
 er's doctrine, that was the condition in which all men 
 are born, entirely depraved, wholly incapacitated for 
 any thing good, and- unless Almighty power comes to 
 their rescue they are hopelessly doomed. I believe 
 men are sinful, but that there is good in them, having 
 been created in the divine image, and God loves them 
 and that is the pledge of their final redemption. But 
 
MR, HUGHES' FOURTH SPEECH. 65 
 
 if sinful hearts cannot love the gospel who is respon- 
 sible for the condition that they are in? And who is 
 to blame for their eternal damnation? Will he tell us? 
 
 There has never been a time since Christ founded 
 the church upon the rock of eternal truth that there 
 have not been christians in the world, and there has 
 never been a time when there was not the same prin- 
 ciple in it which I am preaching" today. Origen was 
 born in the year of 185, and the school at Alexandria 
 was in existence then. In that school was taught the 
 doctrine of the final salvation of all men, and that 
 doctrine was explicitly taught by learned men down 
 to the time of Augustine who said there was very 
 many in his time who believed it. And in all that 
 time Universalism was as clearly recognized as any 
 other doctrine. 
 
 But he says he does not believe there will be any 
 change after death, and wants to know how Christ 
 saves sinners ? I ask him, does any man die perfect 
 in this world ? If not, and there is no change after 
 death, then his doctrine condemns every man, and 
 there is no salvation for any. How does Jesus save 
 sinners? I answer hx his word and spirit, so influen- 
 cing them that the}' come to him, so as not to be cast 
 out. 
 
 Next I come to his question in reference to punish- 
 ment and forgiveness ; and he wants to know if all 
 sins will be punished. I refer him to Ps. lxii. 12, 
 "Unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy; for thou ren- 
 derest unto every man according to his work ?' ' In 
 the administration of divine justice God renders to 
 every man according to his work, and does it in mercy 
 
66 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 as well as justice. Does not that teach punishment 
 for all sins ? I will give my brother a passage or two 
 here. Amos. iii. 2, "You only have I known of all 
 the families of the earth ; therefore, I will punish you 
 for all your iniquities. ' ' Does he believe that ? Even 
 the peculiar people of God are to be punished for all 
 their iniquities. Does not that answer his question ? 
 Turn to Hebrews ii. 2, 3, "For if the word spoken by 
 angels was stedfast, and every transgression and diso- 
 bedience received a just recompence of reward ; how 
 shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" If 
 there is no escape then men shall receive a. just recom- 
 pence of reward for every traiisgression and disobe- 
 dience. 
 
 "But who were the spirits in prison ? I answer they 
 were the spirits of those who were disobedient in the 
 times of Noah. When did Christ preach to them? 
 He preached to them after he was put to death in the 
 flesh, and quickened in the spirit ; and he preached to 
 them when in prison. So we learn from the 3d. 
 chapter of I Peter. In the next chapter it is said, 
 "For, for this cause was the gospel preached to them 
 that are dead, that they might be judged according to 
 men in the flesh, but live according to God in the 
 spirit.'' verse, 6. The preaching was to spirits, not 
 to men in the flesh, that they might "live unto God 
 in the spirit. ' ' So there is preaching of the gospel in 
 the future world. 
 
 My brother takes the position that the phrases "the 
 world," and "all men" do not mean all men literally, 
 but as I understand him, "his people" among all 
 nations representatively, and so he understands Ps. 
 
Mr, HUGHES' FOURTH SPEECH. 67 
 
 Xxii. 27, "All the ends of the world shall remember 
 and turn unto the Lord ; and all the kindreds of the 
 nations shall come and worship before him." That 
 is, so shall there be a people out of all the kindreds of 
 the world, not all mankind really. I have something 
 now I wish to offer upon that subject, for I deem this 
 matter important, and upon which this controversy 
 turns. 
 
 First, I understand. that when the word world re- 
 fers to man in its first and most literal meaning, it is 
 a universal term and means all mankind, as does the 
 words "all men," and "every man" in their first or 
 primary meaning, and that it devolves on my oppo- 
 nent to show that in the proof texts I have given that 
 there is a reason why they are to be restricted in their 
 meaning. Of course, I understand that these words 
 are not always to be taken in their full meaning, as 
 in their historical meaning, or in their particular ap- 
 plication to some time, place or subject, but in these 
 proof texts of mine there is nothing in text, context, 
 or in nature of subject that so limits them, and so 
 they must be understood in their full and unlimited 
 significance. I will now give you many passagss 
 illustrating this point. 
 
 "God was in Christ reconciling- the world unto himself." 
 
 The word world here to includes all that is express- 
 ed in Col. i. 19, 20. 
 
 "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness 
 dwell ; and having made peace by the blood of his cross, by 
 him to reconcile all things unto himself ; by him I say, 
 whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. ' ' 
 
 I can see no. limitation, nothing to require it. Take 
 these passages that follow : 
 
68 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten 
 Son." Jno. iii. 16. 
 
 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the 
 world, but that the world through him might be saved. ' ' 
 Jno. iii. 19. 
 
 "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
 world." Jno. i. 29. 
 
 "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from 
 heaven and giveth life to the world. ' ' Jno. vi. 33. 
 
 "The bread that I give is my flesh, which I will give for 
 the life of the world." Jno. vi. 51. 
 
 "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which 
 shall believe on me through their word ; that they all may be 
 one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also 
 may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast 
 sent me. Jno. xvii. 20, 21, 23. 
 
 "Then spake Jesus again unto them, I am the light of the 
 world ; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but 
 shall have the light of life." Jno, viii. 12. 
 
 "And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into the world, 
 that they which see not might see, and they which see might 
 be made blind." Jno. ix. 39. 
 
 "If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him 
 not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the 
 world." Jno. xii. 47. 
 
 The word world does not in a single instance mean 
 the righteous excluding the wicked ; nor the elect, or 
 a special people. But in all instances where it means 
 less than all mankind, it means specially the wicked 
 excluding the righteous ; as in the following passages: 
 
 "If ye were of the world the world would love its own ; 
 but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen ye out 
 of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Jno. xv. 19. 
 
 "And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, 
 and of righteousness, and of judgment. " Jno. xvi. 18. 
 
 ' 'I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou 
 gavest me out of the world. ' ' Jno. xvii. 6. 
 
MR. HUGHES' FOURTH SPEECH. 69 
 
 "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the 
 world." Jno. xvii. 16. 
 
 "We know that we are of God, and that the whole world 
 lieth in wickedness." I Jno, v. 19. 
 
 "And he is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours 
 only, but for the sins of the whole world." I Jno. ii. 2. 
 
 In the very nature of the case there can be no limi- 
 tation of the word world to an elect or special few. 
 Why make an universal term when applied to mankind 
 mean the smaller part — much the smaller part? When 
 limited to a part of mankind the text indicates it, and 
 it includes the unsaved, the much larger part. So 
 these texts stand in all their force as full proof of my 
 proposition. God loves the world; God was in Christ 
 reconciling the world to himself, and he sent his Son 
 to be the Savior of the world. And we can be per- 
 fectly sure, therefore, that he is "indeed the Savior of 
 the world." 
 
 In the text concerning those in Thessalonica wdio 
 were contrary to all men, I Thess. ii: 15, any one 
 knows that the phrase is not used in an universal 
 sense. It is a historical instance, it limits itself. But 
 is that any reason why, where it is said Christ "tasted 
 death for every man," it is not to be understood in its 
 true and unlimited sense ? Judge the text by its con- 
 nection and the subject to which it is applied. We 
 determine how many have been given to Christ as 
 spoken of in Jno. vi. 37, by the direct teaching in 
 Jno. iii. 35, "The Father loveth the Son and hath 
 given all th i?igs into his hands," and the fact that 
 "he is the Lord of the dead and the living." He 
 certainly gave to Christ all he desired him to save. 
 And having sent his Son to be the Saviour of the 
 
70 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 world, we cannot say he does not desire the salvation 
 of all ; and so gave all into the hands of Christ, -= 
 [ Time expired, 
 
 MR. DAISY'S FOURTH REPLY. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
 men: — It will not take very long to speak a half hour 
 if I hurry, and I will try to hurry. ' There is one 
 question to which I desire my brother's attention that 
 he has not noticed. The question is, Will punishing 
 a guilty man for his sins ever make him holy ? Is 
 holiness or innocency ever the result of punishment ? 
 
 In referring to the restricted passage, "Whosoever 
 believeth in him should not perish but have everlast- 
 ing life," he says his position is that all will believe. 
 Do all believe in this life ? Do any die without be- 
 lieving? If they do, the change must be in the fu- 
 ture world. If you say there is any change, any re- 
 pentance in the future world, prove it. The burden 
 of proof rests upon you. Proof is what we want, not 
 assumption ! Assumption might go very well if you 
 had only those before you that believe your doctrine, 
 but there are those here, and I am among the number, 
 who do not believe it. To satisfy us you must prove 
 your position, and not merely assume that it is true. 
 
 "Sheol, he says, is never rendered hell Psalm ix. 
 17, "The wicked shall be turned into sheol, with all 
 the nations that forget God." I used that to prove 
 the terms "all the ends of the world," and "all the 
 kindreds of the nations, in Ps. xxii. 27, do not 
 
MR. DAILY'S FOURTH REPLY. 7 1 
 
 mean all the human race, but must be taken in a re- 
 stricted sense. I shall notice this passage again more 
 fully when I come to my proposition. 
 
 He argues that the spirit of man in being created in 
 the image of God became his child, and therefore all 
 the spirits of the human family are his children. I 
 ask how it can be that creation constitutes one a child. 
 Do you recognize any distinction between being a 
 mere creature and being a child of his? Does not cre- 
 ation constitute us creatures of the Creator, and not 
 his children? If creation constitutes human beings 
 the children of God, I cannot see why that same work 
 does not make the brute creatures his children. The 
 distinction of being created in his image cuts no 
 figure in the case, for that renders us only a higher 
 order of creatures. 
 
 He refrered rather sarcastically to my assertion that 
 sinful hearts that are in love with sin cannot love the 
 gospel, in presuming to deny that position. Does he 
 mean to say that such hearts can love the gospel? 
 Hearts that have no love for God, that despise him — 
 does he say that men in that condition love the gospel? 
 I say they can love Universalism, and some of them 
 do, but the}^ cannot love the gospel. 
 
 I never saw God, he says, for he is a Spirit. That 
 is true. But he reasons that I have never seen all of 
 man, because I have not seen his spirit. How weak 
 that is! I have never seen the spirit of a man, but 
 who, except a Universalist pressed in a debate, would 
 contend I had never seen a maji for that reason? 
 
 There have always been people who believed in 
 Universalism, he says. I suppose there is not an 
 
72 FIRST PROPOSITION 
 
 error under the sun but that there have been people 
 for ages who held it in some phase. But I say there 
 is no record of a Universalist church farther back than 
 one hundred and fifty years. Mr. Nye, a noted Uni- 
 versalist, testifies, "There is a distinct, separate body 
 of Christian believers called the Universalist church. 
 It was organized a little more than a hundred years 
 ago." There never was such a distinct, separate 
 body, before. This is positive proof that the doctrine 
 of that church is false, and there is no setting that fact 
 aside! 
 
 He asks if any man dies perfect, in attempting to 
 make the point that they all die in an imperfect state 
 in this world. Assuming that I would admit that 
 they all die imperfect here, he draws the conclusion 
 that all would be condemed, if there is no change 
 after death. I quote you the opinion of Paul in Heb. 
 vii. 19: "For the law made nothing perfect, but the 
 bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we 
 draw nigh unto God.'' All that have this better 
 hope, which is received in regeneration, are made per- 
 fect by the one offering of Christ, for it is said, "By 
 one offering he hath forever perfected them that are 
 sanctified." These die perfect, not being punished as 
 much as they deserve to be for their sins. He argues 
 that God will not be merciful even to the sins of his 
 people, but will punish them all for every sin they 
 commit as much as they deserve to be punished. But 
 God says to them, "I will be merciful to your unright- 
 eousness, and your sins and your iniquities will I re- 
 member no more." He chastises his children for their 
 disobedience, but that is not an atonement for their sins , 
 
MR. DAILY'S FOURTH REPLY. 73 
 
 He says the body dies at death, and not the spirit. 
 Then when it is said he is Lord both of the dead and 
 the living, it is the body that is referred to as being 
 dead. He has authority and power over dead bodies 
 to resurrect them, as he did the body of Lazarus. I 
 will show the destiny of man's body when I come to 
 my proposition. 
 
 All the use he makes of being born again is that 
 they may become children of God in some kind of mor- 
 al sense. He does not meet the argument I made that 
 if all are children of God by creation, which he has not 
 proved and cannot prove, then it is not necessary for 
 sinners to be born again. 
 
 He says if it is necessary he will say something about 
 how Christ saves sinners. I want him to say some- 
 thing about that. If Christ does not save sinners 
 from punishment, from death, from sinning or from 
 hell, does he save them from anything f If so, from 
 what f I want him to tell what he saves them from 
 and how? Get out of the brush, and show yourself, so 
 I ca?i know just ivhere to shoot! 
 
 In trying to prove that the term "world" in the 
 passage he quotes means every individual of the 
 human race, he refers to the text that says Christ 
 tasted death for every man as an evidence of the sup 
 posed unrestricted use of such terms. In the second 
 chapter of Hebrews, in which that text is found, the 
 term "every man" is restricted to those brought to 
 glory by the captain of their salvation, spoken of as 
 "many sons." "All that the Father giveth me shall 
 come," is another supposed proof. The restricted 
 sense expressed in that passage is a positive denial that 
 
74 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 all universally will come, and I think he knows it. 
 
 His position is that the gospel must be preached to 
 all. As it is not preached to all in this world, he as- 
 sumes it will be preached in the next. He has quoted 
 the commission, "Go into all the world, and preach 
 my gospel to every creature," to support his position. 
 He did not give the text in full. I ask him, Is the 
 gospel preached to all the members of the human fam- 
 ily by those who are sent out to preach it ? He says 
 it must be preached to all ; that is the way sinners are 
 brought to Christ. Is it preached to all the members 
 of the human family? Admitting it is not, he as- 
 sumes it will be preached in the future world, to sin- 
 ners after they are dead. It will not be preached by 
 ministers sent out to preach it, surely. I assume he 
 will not take the position that he and I will preach 
 the gospel to sinners after we are dead. Yet he takes 
 the position that by this preaching all the world will 
 be brought to Christ. But he says Christ preached 
 to- the spirits in prison after his death, and that this 
 means he preached to sinners in the spirit world. 
 That preaching is spoken of as done in the past, the 
 time being specified as the days of Noah. So that 
 preaching is not going on now 7 . 
 
 Negative Argument IX. I offer my ninth argu- 
 ment against the doctrine of this proposition, which 
 is that Jesus plainly taught that both soul and body 
 of some would suffer in hell after the death of the 
 body. 
 
 Matt. x. 29 : "And fear not them which kill the body, but 
 are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him which ia 
 able to destroy both soul and body in helh ' ' 
 
MR. DAILY S FOURTH REPLY. 75 
 
 Luke xii. 4, 5 : ''And I say unto you my friends. Be not 
 afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no 
 more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye 
 shall fear : Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power 
 to cast into hell ; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." 
 
 When is this destruction to be? After the body 
 dies. Both soul and body are to be destroyed in hell- 
 This being true, all will not be finally holy and happy. 
 If there is no such place as hell, if there is no punish- 
 ment of the body after death, and if there is no dan- 
 ger of anybody being cast into such a place, then 
 Christ used deceptive language. Christ was address- 
 ing the Jews here in language that was plain enough 
 for any one to understand, and instead of correcting 
 the opinion the Jews held, he sanctioned and confirm- 
 ed their opinion by teaching the same thing himself 
 by showing that the soul and body could be cast into 
 hell alter death of the body. We will wait and see if 
 Brother Hughes attempts to evade this argument. 
 But I make this summary of the argument before I 
 leave it : 
 
 1 . A proposition that teaches or implies that there 
 is no such a state into which the soul and body can be 
 thrown after the death of the body, contradicts the 
 teaching of the Saviour and is false. 
 
 2. This proposition denies there is such a state 
 into which the soul and body can be cast after the 
 death of the body, and contradicts the teaching of the 
 Saviour. 
 
 3. Therefore, this proposition is false. 
 
 Negative Argument X. I now invite your atten- 
 tion to my tenth argument. It, is drawn from the 
 teaching of Jesus in the following passage : 
 
76 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 John viii' 21-24. "Then said Jesus unto them, I go my 
 way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins : whith- 
 er I go ye cannot come. Then said the Jews, Will he kill him- 
 self ? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. And 
 he said unto them, Ye are from beneath ; I am from above : 
 ye are of this world ; I am not of this world. I said there- 
 fore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye believe 
 not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. " 
 
 This language was addressed to the Pharisees who 
 did not believe in Christ, and who declared that his 
 record was untrue. He plainly teaches in this decla- 
 ration, "Ye shall die in your sins ; whither I go ye 
 cannot come," that those who die in their sins cannot 
 go after they die where he went after he died. He 
 taught in the twenty-fourth verse that to die in un- 
 belief would be an evidence or proof that they would 
 die in their sins. After thus dying, he positively as- 
 serts that they could not go where he went after 
 death. I want this audience to give close attention 
 to whatever reply my opponent may attempt to make 
 to this argument, if he attempts to make any, and see 
 if his explanation of the text is not an attempt to 
 evade its plain teaching. 
 
 Negative Argument XI. i now advance to the 
 eleventh argument against this proposition. It is 
 predicated on the teaching of the circumstance of the 
 rich man and Lazarus. Luke xvi. 19-31 
 
 "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in 
 purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day ; and 
 there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid 
 at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the 
 crumbs which fell from the rich man's table : moreover the 
 dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that 
 the begger died, and was carried by the angels into Abra- 
 ham's bosom : the rich man also died and was buried ; and 
 
MR. DAILY'S FOURTH REPLY. 77 
 
 in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth 
 Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried 
 and said, lather Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Laz- 
 arus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool 
 my tongue ; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham 
 said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy 
 good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he 
 is comforted, and thou art tormented, and beside all this, 
 between us and you there is a great gulf fixed : so that they 
 that would pass from hence to you cannot ; . neither can 
 they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, 
 I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him 
 to my father's house : for I have five brethren ; that he may 
 testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of 
 torment. Abraham said unto him. They have Moses and the 
 prophets ; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, Father 
 Abraham : but if one went unto them from the dead, they 
 will repent, and he said unto him, If they hear not Moses 
 and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though 
 one rose from the dead. " 
 
 This lesson is plain. It seems that it ought not to 
 require any explanation whatever. Though there are 
 some embellishments here, that cannot be called in 
 question, but that does not destroy the fact that is 
 embellished. That there is some figurative language 
 in this is certainly true,- but that will not destroy the 
 facts that are plainly asserted in this lesson. I take 
 the position that this is actual history related by 
 Christ, from whom nothing but the truth could come. 
 The teaching of Christ would have been incomplete 
 without the instruction contained in this narrative. 
 As he was a teacher sent from God, it must be ex- 
 pected he would give plain instruction in regard to 
 the future life. If bej-ond the grave there is a place 
 of rest and peace, it is expected he would speak of it. 
 
7$ tfifeST proposition. 
 
 If there is a world of woe after death, he would lay it 
 open also and give plain instruction concerning it. 
 In all cases that Christ spoke parables it is said that 
 he spoke a parable unto the people. It is not said 
 here that this is a parable. It is said there was a cer- 
 tain rich man, and there was a certain beggar that lay 
 at his gate. In this historical narrative, given by the 
 wise teacher, he has lifted up the curtain that covers 
 the dark world of death and condemnation, and bade 
 us behold how fearful a thing it is to be lost. We are 
 made to look in upon one who was rich in his lifetime, 
 living in splendor and faring sumptuously, but after 
 death was so poor he could not purchase a drop of 
 water. He suffered after death without the least 
 prospect afforded him of mittigation or cessation. If 
 there had been any prospect of future deliverance 
 Abraham would have informed or reminded him of it, 
 and encouraged him to have fortitude because of re- 
 lief that would certainly come. But no hope is 
 afforded ; the gulf is fixed, it cannot be passed. I 
 think I know the stand my brother will take with re- 
 ference to the teaching of my blessed Saviour in this 
 lesson. But I shall not anticipate his explanation t 
 but think I can safely promise to meet it when it is 
 made. — [Time expired. 
 
Mi?, hughes' fifth speech. 79 
 
 MR. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 
 
 Messrs Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
 men: — I am very glad to appear before you this morn- 
 ing again in defense of the proposition you have just 
 heard read. First, I wish to call your attention to 
 the insinuation made two are three times in this dis- 
 cussion by Mr. Daily, that some of my interpretations 
 of scripture were made to evade their plain teachings. 
 He cannot consider that as courteous, and it is palpa- 
 ble violation of our rules. He surely would not have 
 done so, had he not been a little disturbed in his 
 mind. 
 
 "Whosoever believeth," is no restriction if all be- 
 come believers, as is a legitimate conclusion, seeing 
 that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
 begotten Son ;" whom "he sent not to condemn the 
 world, but that the world through him might be 
 saved. John iii. 16, 17. But what is the proof of 
 faith and repentence after death ? My whole argu- 
 ment bears upon that point. I regard man as a free, 
 accountable being, with the same capability and re- 
 sponsibility in both worlds. God as the same loving 
 and just being hereafter as here, and the direct teach- 
 ing of scripture, that "the gospel was preached to the 
 dead, that they might be judged according to men in 
 the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. I 
 Peter ix. 6. Christ's preaching to spirits in prison. 
 I Peter iii. 18, 19. This preaching was not done in 
 the days of Noah as he assumes, as is manifest in the 
 better rendering of the Revised Version : "Christ was 
 
§6 £tk§¥ proposition. 
 
 put to death in the flesh, but made.aHyg in^e spirit ; 
 in the which he went and preacned* unro t*he spirits in 
 prison, that were aforetime disobedient, when the long 
 suffering of God waited in the days of Noah." The 
 disobedience was aforetime in the days of Noah. The 
 preaching was to them in prison after the death of 
 Christ. It was to them as spirits, by Jesus in his own 
 individual spirit. And this calls for something more 
 from Brother Daily than mere assumption, and loud 
 assertion on his part. 
 
 But his reference to "The wicked shall be turned 
 into hell, (sheol) ; and all the nations that forget God," 
 he used to prove that the phrases "All the ends of the 
 world," and "all the kindreds of the nations," do 
 not mean all the human race. And why ? Because 
 if "all the ends of the world" and the parallelism "all 
 the kindreds of the nations," mean all men, then 
 "all will remember and turn unto the L,ord, and come 
 and worship before him," and I have proved universal 
 repentance, and there is no help for it. 
 
 But this passage only teaches what is most evident 
 from Ps. lxxxvi. 9. "All nations whom thou hast 
 made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, 
 and shall glorify thy name." Since, therefore, "God 
 made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all 
 the face of the earth, and that they might seek his 
 face" (Act xvii. 26, 27.), it becomes evident and 
 clear that there will be universal repentance. And 
 the fact that the wicked, and all the nations that for- 
 get God, shall be turned into hell {sheol) does not mili- 
 tate against it one iota. For sheol is not an eternal 
 prison ; it is to be destroyed. 
 
MR. HUGHES FIFTH SPEECH. 8 1 
 
 But my friend has found one place where "all na- 
 tions" really means all nations ; namely, Matt. xxv. 
 32. I would kindly ask him, if that is the only place; 
 and if there is any other place in all God's word that 
 a believer in a partial and limited atonement dare 
 make such an admission ? He is very anxious for me 
 to 'get out of the brush/' and tell him how Christ 
 saves sinners, and what effect his death has upon 
 them. I would not have him to think for a moment 
 that I believe in a limited vicarious atonement, in 
 which not only the punishment, but the 'sins them- 
 selves" of the elect were transferred to Christ. Thus 
 making him who was "without sin," "holy, harmless 
 and undefiled," (Heb. iv : 15. vii : 26.) the greatest 
 sinner of all the world ! ! ! That is too abhorrent, too 
 monstrous in every sense ; wounding every sensibility- 
 of righteousness, outraging every sense of justice. 
 And so far I am glad to be "out of the brush!"' 
 
 The atonement in which I believe is moral in its ef- 
 fects. It commends God's love to men, wins their 
 love to God, and reconciles them to him, and saves 
 them by his life. Rom. v. 10. "God w r as in Christ 
 reconciling the world unto himself." II cor. v. 19. 
 
 Now, my brother, will you allow me to ask you, 
 what has all this to do with the question in debate ? 
 There are man}- in other churches who believe in the 
 final salvation of all, who believe in a universal, vica- 
 rious atonement. But take whatever view of Christ's 
 death ; — even yours, brother Daily— and make it uni- 
 versal, and universal salvation follows, and there is no 
 escape. And the sharp, clear cut issue between us is 
 whether Christ's death is for all mankind. And this 
 
82 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 is the reason why I have been so insistent in pressing 
 upon you the fact that "Christ gave himself a ransom 
 for all," that "he tasted death for every man," that 
 the "Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world, 
 and all those universal terms so constant, and so uni- 
 form throughout the Bible that the entire christian 
 world, with but few exceptions, accepts it. Even the 
 majority of the Baptist denominations believe it so far 
 as I know. Brother Daily, you must do something to 
 lift this enormous load from your shoulders besides 
 demanding what is my theory in reference to Christ's 
 drath, however absurd that ma}^ be. I believe he died 
 for all men, and if I prove that, then I have proved 
 my proposition so far as this debate is concerned : and 
 I cannot insult your intelligence so much as to believe 
 you do not know it. 
 
 But how does creation make one a child of God? 
 Creatio?i alofie does not, as I have stated a number of 
 times. Wh} T cannot my brother "understand my 
 speech ?" "God is spirit," and he is the "Father of 
 spirits. Heb. xii. 9. If you have a spirit God is the 
 Father of it. He is never said to be the Father of the 
 flesh. The children are partakers of the flesh and 
 blood, but they are not flesh and blood. It is the 
 spirit that is created in the divine image, and to it he 
 has imparted the divine nature, and the relationship 
 of a child of God. Man is not, therefore, a creature 
 only, but a child as well. This was true of Adam 
 who was a "son of God," (Luke iii. 3S'.)aud it is true 
 of the Heathen, who are the "offspring of God." 
 Acts. xvii. 28-29. And so there is "One God and 
 Father of all." Eph. iv. 6. 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 83 
 
 "Resemblance does not make one a child." It 
 does not in relationship, but it does in the character- 
 istic sense. I have already referred to Math. v. 44-45 
 in proof, but my friend pays no attention. Jesus 
 says, "Love your enemies that ye may be the children 
 of your Father which is in heaven." They were al- 
 ready children in the sense of relation, but in loving 
 enemies they became his children in character. 
 Just as the Jews were "Abraham's seed," and so rela- 
 ted as children, but not in character, because they did 
 not his works. Jno. viii : 37-56. 
 
 But the Universalist Church did not exist in the early 
 days of Christianity. This I know very well so far as 
 the organized church is concerned, and he need not 
 go to so great pains to prove what nobody disputes. 
 But so far as doctrine is concerned it did, and was rec- 
 ognized as orthodox as much as any other doctrine. 
 
 Doederlein, German theologian, once declared that, 
 "The more highly distinguished in Christian antiqui- 
 ty any one was for learning, so much the more did he 
 cherish the hope of future torment ending." 
 
 Dr. Edward Beecher testifies : "Beyond all doubt 
 in the age of Origen and his scholars, and in the times 
 of Theodore Mopsuestia (between 200 A. D. and 420 
 A. D.) the weight of learned and influential ecclesias- 
 tics was on the side of Restoration." 
 
 What point does it make if the church then was 
 not called the Universalist Church ? or that there was 
 no organization called by that name before the days 
 of John Murray ? How does that effect the truth of 
 our proposition ? Christ gave no name to his Church. 
 Even the name of christian was not applied to it until 
 
84 FIRS? PROPOSITION. 
 
 we find the disciples at Antioch, and there we are not 
 sure but that it was applied to them in derision. I 
 cannot see what all this has to do with the question. 
 and several other matters brought up by my friend. 
 We are debating the question of the final holiness and 
 happiness of all mankind. It is my business to prove 
 it by the Scriptures, his to show that the Scriptures 
 quoted by me are misapplied. But he manifests a 
 great anxiety to do something else, to introduce nega- 
 tive arguments, make strong assertions on passages 
 he merely quotes without any argument upon them, 
 or to show how they prove his positions. To all of 
 this I shall give such attention as I think necessary, 
 and reserve to myself the necessary time to introduce 
 such matter in the affirmative as is required, and the 
 matter thus introduced should claim his first atten- 
 tion. 
 
 Now I come to punishment and forgiveness ; and I 
 call your attention first to the fact that there is 
 taught in the Bible both punishment and forgiveness. 
 But nowhere in the Bible is it said that punishment 
 will be forgiven ; it is always the forgiveness of sins. 
 In the 99th Psalm, verse 8, we have these words : 
 "Thou wast a God that forgavest them though thou 
 tookest vengeance of their inventions." So there was 
 here both punishment and rorgivenes in the same case. 
 Again, "Speak ye comfortably unto Jerusalem, and 
 cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that 
 her iniquity is pardoned ; for she hath received at the 
 Lord's hand double for all her sins." Isa. xl. 2. 
 Here also is both pardon and punishment. And if it 
 be true as affirmed by Amos iii. 2, "You only have 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 85 
 
 I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will 
 I punish you for all your iniquities ;' ' and if there was 
 forgiveness to any of those special people, then there 
 was both punishment and forgiveness again. In Heb, 
 ii. 2-3, it is declared, "Ever}' transgression and diso- 
 bedience received a just recompence of reward, and 
 there is no escape for those who neglect so great sal- 
 vation :" then under God's government in general 
 there is just punishment, and still forgiveness. For 
 God is no respecter of persons. "But he that doeth 
 wrong shall receive for the wrong that he hath done ; 
 and there is no respect of persons." Col. iii. 25. 
 
 The Jews were God's peculiar people, but to them 
 there was no exemption from a just recompence of re- 
 ward. So St. Paul declares : "Who will render to 
 ever) man according to his deeds. To them who by 
 patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and 
 aonor and immortality, eternal life : but to them who 
 are contentious, and do not obey the truth, indigna- 
 and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul 
 of man that doeth evil, of the few first, and also of the 
 Gentile. For there is no respect of persons with God. ' ' 
 When a man is elected to a high position, he is held 
 to a high responsibility. Those who know, and do 
 not the master's will, "will be beaten with many 
 -tripes. And they who know not, and yet do things 
 worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." 
 Luke xii. 47-48. When one has received his punish- 
 ment and accepted it, just enough to turn his feet 
 from the way of the transgressor, then God freely 
 forgives him and remembers his sins against him no 
 more. The prodigal left his father's house, spent all 
 
86 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 in riotous living, and perishing with hunger came to 
 himself, and returned to his father who received him 
 with rejoicing, put on him the best robe, and killed 
 for him the fatted calf — the son was lost and found, 
 dead and alive again. There is the whole story, and 
 surely enough to prove both forgiveness and punish- 
 ment. 
 
 But we have destruction of both soul and body in 
 gehe?ma. I would like to know how my brother can 
 make out his proposition of endless punishment after 
 the destruction of both soul and body in hell ? As to 
 the meaning of the word gehenna in Christ's time, I 
 deny that it meant a place of endless punishment in his 
 day. There is not an athority extant among Jewish 
 writers till at least 300 years after Christ that ever 
 used it in that sense. Christ could have used it only 
 in the sense of limited punishment, and Brother Daily 
 knows that in its first meaning it only means tempo- 
 ral punishment. 
 
 He makes an argument on John viii. 21, "Then 
 Jesus said unto them, I go my way and ye shall seek 
 me, and ye shall die in your sins ; whither I go, ye 
 cannot come." In answer to this, I refer him to John 
 xiii. 33, "Little children, yet a little while I am with 
 you. Ye shall seek me ; and as I said unto the Jews 
 whither I go ye cannot come, so now I say unto you." 
 I submit that if that language proves the endless mis- 
 ery of the Jews, so it does of Christ's disciples also; 
 for the same words are applied to them in the same 
 sense. 
 
 I come now td the rich man and Lazarus, which my 
 friend says is literal history. And here I join issue 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 87 
 
 with him, and say that it is a parable. I ask him, 
 then, why was the poor ma.i conveyed to Abraham's 
 bosom? Why was the rich man sent to torment? It 
 was not said the poor man was a good man, nor 
 that the rich man was a bad man. Nothing is said of 
 their character, even by intimation. To have "evil 
 things' ' here, does that ensure heaven ? To have 
 "good things" in this world, does that make hell cer" 
 tain ? My friends, why are you all so eager for good 
 things in this life, if they mean eternal perdition in 
 the world to come ? If this is literal history why is 
 there a great gulf fixed to keep the bad out of heaven 
 and the good out of hell? It is said ; "Besides all 
 this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, 
 so that they who would pass from hence to you cannot; 
 neither can they pass to us, that wonld come from 
 thence." There might be some friend who still had 
 human feeling, that would go to the relief of some 
 friend in hell ! But not a drop of water to cool a 
 parched tongue! All very gracious and beautiful as 
 history, and perfectly consistent with the doctrine 
 which condemns men to torments and agonies before 
 they are born ! Is hell and heaven so close together 
 that their inhabitants can converse across the great 
 gulf ? Are the saved in heaven all nice and comfort- 
 able, while in hell within sight and sound those who 
 on earth had good things are in the flames of hell ? 
 Is it true that on earth it is an abomination to have 
 no compassion or suffering, while in heaven that same 
 sin becomes a virtue? Which had you rather be, 
 Abraham pleading for Sodom, or Abraham rejecting 
 the rich man's plea for his brethren because he had 
 
88 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 his good things on earth ? All of this if it is history. • 
 But I deny that it is history. Let it be a parable rep- 
 resenting the Jew dying to his former high position, 
 and the Gentile rising to the high privileges of the 
 kingdom, and we escape these absurdities. Jesus 
 says, "Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom shall 
 be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing 
 forth fruits thereof," Matt. xxi. 43. But my friend 
 must construe it as history in order to make out his 
 case. But whatever application is given to it, when 
 "hell {hades) w T ill deliver up the dead which are in 
 it," it will itself be destroyed, (Rev. xx. 13) and so it 
 gives no aid to Brother Daily's argument. I would 
 like to know how many hells he has. Here is hades, 
 v hell, and he has sheol, hell, and just a little while ago 
 gehenna, hell. How many hells has he? Will he 
 kindly explain ? 
 
 I now pass to my ninth argument: 
 IX. The Universal Submission to Christ. 
 Phil. ii. 9-1 1. "Wherefore God hath highly exalt 
 ed him, and given him a name which is above every 
 name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee should 
 bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and 
 things under the earth ; and that every tongue should 
 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God 
 the Father. ' ' 
 
 1. We have here the most complete expression of 
 universality. Every knee, and every tongue, in heav- 
 en, in the earth, and under the earth, embraces every 
 department of being, and no language could be more 
 comprehensive. 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 89 
 
 2. This universal homage and confession can but 
 mean moral submission. Such only could be to the 
 glory of God. There is no intimation that a part of 
 mankind should confess in one way, and a part in an- 
 other. In Isaiah xlv : 22-25, we read; "Look unto me> 
 and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I am 
 God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself 
 the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, 
 and shall not return. That unto me every knee shall 
 bow, ever}- -tongue shall swear. Surely shall one say, 
 in the Lord have I righteousness and strength ; even 
 to him shall men come ; and all that are incensed 
 against him shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall all 
 the seed of Isreal be justified, and shall glory." 
 
 In this we learn that this universal submission shall 
 be "111 righteousness and strength," which they swear 
 they have in him. To bow the knee, and confess the 
 name of Jesus to the glory of God, is to worship God 
 and glorify his name as foretold by the Psalmist: "All 
 nations whom thou hast made, shall come and worship 
 before thee, O Lord, and - shall glorify thy name." 
 Ps. lxxxvi : 9. 
 
 X. Argument 
 
 Rom. v. 12, 18-21. I commence reading at the 12th 
 verse, and pass over to the 18th, for the intervening 
 verses are parenthetical and do not affect the argument. 
 "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and 
 death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men for that all 
 have sinned. Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment 
 came upon all men to condemnation ; even so by the right- 
 eousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justifi- 
 cation of life. Far as by one man's disobedience many were 
 made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made 
 
90 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offence might 
 abound. But where sin abounded grace did much more 
 abound. That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might 
 grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus 
 Christ our Lord." 
 
 Here we learn that the reign of sin is universal; "all 
 have sinned." The condemnation that follows is uni- 
 versal, "Judgment came upon all men to condemna- 
 tion." But the reign of grace is to be equally univer- 
 sal, "The free gift came upon all men unto justifica- 
 tion of life." "The many shall be made righteous. " 
 And universal righteousness proves my proposition . 
 [ Time Expired. 
 
 MR. DAILY S FIFTH REPLY. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audience 
 and Worthy Opponent: — I feel truly grateful to 
 God this morning that we are favored with such a 
 beautiful day, that we are now so pleasantly situated 
 and that we are progressing so well in the discussion 
 of the question we have under consideration. Before 
 I attend to the arguments made by my brother 
 this morning, I shall invite your attention to some 
 things brought out in this discussion yesterda}<\ The 
 spirits of the unjust will enter the future world in an 
 unjustified state, and as there will be a resurrection 
 both of the just and the unjust (Acts. xxv. 15), the 
 unjust will remain unjust till the time of the resurrec- 
 tion whenever that takes place. My worthy opponent 
 argued that those who enter the future world unjusti- 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIFTH REPLY. 9 1 
 
 fied will be reformed by faith and repentance. This 
 reformation will necessarily be made, then, after the 
 resurrection, as the fact that the unjust will be resur- 
 rected renders it impossible for it to take place before 
 the resurrection. 
 
 Again, as punishment is inflicted in this life on 
 those who die impenitent, which fails to bring about 
 their reformation here, and they go into the future 
 world in an unjustified state, may they not enjoy that 
 state in the future world as they did here, and may 
 not punishment there fail to reform them as it did 
 here? 
 
 He argued that "all things" being given to Christ 
 means that every member of the human family was 
 given to him to be brought to enjoy a state of endless 
 holiness and happiness. If that is the sense, and the 
 term "all things" is unlimited, then the bodies of all 
 men were given to him, and they will be brought to 
 enjoy a state of endless holiness and happiness. This 
 is clearly taught concerning those who will enjoy that 
 state. 
 
 I Cor. vi. 19-20. "What? know ye not that your 
 body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, 
 which ye have of God, and ye are not your own ? For 
 ye are bought with a price : therefore glorify God in 
 your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 
 
 As the bodies of his people, as well as their spirits, 
 were bought with a price, and belonged to God, they 
 were given into the hands of Christ to be brought to 
 glory by him . But judgment as well as salvation 
 was given into the hands of Christ. 
 
 John v. 22. ' Tor the Father judgeth no man, but hath 
 
$2 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 committed all judgment unto the Son." 
 
 John v. 26, 27. "For as the Father hath life in himself; 
 so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and 
 hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because 
 he is the Son of man," 
 
 So he has all given into his hands, to give eternal 
 life to as many as the Father gave him as his people, 
 and also to execute judgment upon the rest of man- 
 kind. 
 
 He claimed that the doctrine of Universalism is an 
 ancient doctrine. The argument I made he has no- 
 ticed only by saying that the Universalist church is 
 not in the discussion. You remember the argument 
 I made was that if Universalism, as taught in this pro- 
 position, had been the doctrine of Christ and his apos- 
 tles, the church founded by them would have been a. 
 Universalist church, and as the gates of hell could not 
 prevail against that church it would have continued 
 to the present time as a Universalist church. But I 
 have proved that the Universalist church never had 
 an existence before the days of John Murray. 
 
 I now desire to read from a work written by Matthew 
 Hale, entitled "Universalism Examined, Renounced, 
 and Exposed." Being compelled to evade a great 
 many things taught in the word of God in order to 
 stand by the assumptions of Universalism, he left the 
 Universalist church and worked against it. I read 
 from pages 76, 77, 78 & 79. 
 
 "Error is as old as creation. That instruction which 
 causeth to err, and leads down to death, began in 
 Eden as soon as God's law was proclaimed. But the 
 peculiar form of error known as Universalism is a 
 modern affair. Upon no subject are many persons 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIFTH REPLY. 93 
 
 more deceived. The present form of Universalism 
 can date no farther back than 181 8, when Hosea 
 Ballou avowed the doctrines that now compose the 
 system. I say its present form, for the system has 
 never been the same in an y two periods of time. 
 The doctrines of Universalism ; the arguments offered 
 in its favor ; the expositions of Scripture, which dis- 
 tinguish it in one age, are set aside in the next ; and 
 other doctrines, and other expositions, conflicting and 
 contradictor}', take their place. An argument ad- 
 vanced against Universalism in one age, will not 
 touch the system in the next. Nothing connected 
 with Universalism is permanent, except its moral 
 results ; these remain unchanged, — always destruc- 
 tive, every where licentious and fatal. Mr. Murray- 
 is called "the father of Universalism ;." but not one 
 doctrine that entered into the system, as defended by 
 Murray, enters into it now. To this subject I shall 
 devote more attention in my lecture upon the moral 
 results of Universalism. 
 
 "No one pretends that the present form of Univer- 
 salism runs back any farther than 1818 ; while the 
 system, under any form, can date back no farther than 
 to John Murray, who is styled the 'father of Univer- 
 salism.' {Mod. Hist, of Univ. p. 318.) The child 
 is evidently no older than the parent, and Mr. Murray 
 did not commence his public life till 1770. 
 
 "I am not ignorant of th~ fact that Universalists 
 attempt to show that Oigen, Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 and some of the early Fathers, believed in Universal- 
 ism. But, Universalists themselves being judges 
 they have no claim upon these men. 
 
94 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 "Mr. H. Ballon, 2d, in his 'Ancient History of 
 Universal ism,' cites Origen as a Universalist. But 
 his own testimony proves that Origen did not believe 
 in the salvation of all men. He held that all souls 
 that have lived, or ever will live, were created at one 
 time, and were all equal ; that all will be ransomed 
 from hell, and stand as at the beginning. But while 
 the damned will be restored, others will fall from 
 purity, and take their place ; and as the once lost 
 ascend to heaven, the once blest descend to hell ; and 
 those restored can again fall, and be lost. Thus the 
 soul would alternately experience the joy of heaven 
 and the woe of hell. Origen believed that hell would 
 always be full, and its fires never cease to burn. 
 Such was his Universalism, amounting only to the 
 doctrine of the migration of souls, from a place of pain 
 to a place of bliss, and back again. (Anc. Hist. Univ. 
 
 PP. 95, 99, ii4, 156.) 
 
 "Clemens Alexandrinus was no more a Universalist 
 than was Origen. He believed that to some the fu- 
 ture life would be one of probation. He taught that 
 all who died without knowledge of Christ, would have 
 space for repentance ; implying that others would not. 
 That he believed that all those would repent who 
 have space for repentance, he does not assert. (Anc. 
 Hist. Univ. pp. 71, 72.) 
 
 "Universalism, as a system, we repeat, is a modern 
 affair, not yet thirty years of age. Can any re- 
 flecting man believe that God would give us a revela- 
 tion, and the meaning of that revelation be unreveal- 
 ed eighteen hundred years ? or that the true doctrines 
 
■MR. DAILY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 95 
 
 of the Bible were unknown till Mr. Murray landed in 
 this country in 1770 ?" 
 
 This testimony from the auther of the ''Ancient 
 History of Uuiversalism' ' is a refutation of the claim 
 made that Origen believed the Universalist doctrine of 
 today. There never was a published creed, issued by 
 any religious body prior to one hundred and fifty 
 vears ago that asserted the doctrine of Universalism 
 and never was there known a church of that faith be- 
 fore the days of John Murray. 
 
 He says, <l 'Whosoever believeth 3 is no restriction 
 if all believe." He is sufficiently aquainted with lan- 
 guage to know that that form of expression indicates 
 that all will not believe. If Jesus had meant to teach 
 that all would finalh- believe and be saved he would 
 have said, "Even so shall the Son of man be lifted up 
 that all the human family should believe in him, 
 and not perish, but have eternal life." 
 
 His theory of reformation is that all are punished 
 here, which results in the reformation of some, and 
 that those not reformed by punishment here will be 
 reformed b\~ punishment inflicted upon them after 
 death. 
 
 But he has also taken the position that all leave 
 this world as sinners. Then none are completely re- 
 formed here. It follows that all the human family 
 will die unjustified, and will be subjected to punish- 
 ment in the future world ! 
 
 He attempts to prove that the gospel is preached to 
 the ungodly in the future world, not by preachers, of 
 course, but by Christ, by two passages, the first of 
 which refers onlv to the wicked antediluvians, and 
 
96 FIRS? PROPOSITION. 
 
 the second of which asserts that the gospel was 
 preached to them that are now dead. If these texts 
 mean what he claims, they do not teach that this 
 preaching is going on now, or that any others except 
 that particular class are refered to. He cannot prove 
 that Christ is going now to the place where the un- 
 godly are being punished to preach to them. Besides 
 if punishment is the means employed by God to re- 
 form them, preaching to them can do them no good. 
 
 But I deny that these passages teach what he tries 
 to prove by them ; that Christ, after he died, went to 
 the place where the wicked were being punished, and 
 preached to them for their reformation. In the third 
 chapter of I. Peter the apostle treats of the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ's bod}', a doctrine that was much dis- 
 puted. To show that unbelief in him was nothing 
 new, he refered to the same spirit of unbelief as exist- 
 ing in the days of Noah. It was by his Spirit, the 
 same Spirit by which his body was quickened or raised 
 from the dead, that he went in the days of Noah and 
 preached through him, as a preacher of righteousness, 
 to the wicked generation that was then in being, and 
 whose spirits were in the prison of hell at the time 
 Peter was writing. The second passage reads, "For, 
 for this cause w T as the gospel preached to them that 
 are dead ; that they might be judged according to men 
 in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.'' 
 This passage says nothing about Christ's preaching 
 the gospel to them after they were dead. It says the 
 gospel wqs preached to them that are dead. They 
 had been judged according to men in the flesh when 
 they received the gospel, that is, censured, judged and 
 
MR. DAILY* S FIFTH REPLY. 97 
 
 condemned by men in the flesh for receiving the gospel, 
 but, notwithstanding this judgment, they lived ac- 
 cording to God in the spirit. 
 
 My opponent says his whole argument bears upon 
 the point that faith and repentance will appear after 
 death. He has not produced a single passage that 
 proves that the unbeliever will be made to believe 
 after death, or that the impenitent sinner will repent 
 after death. In supposed proof he quotes Psalm 
 lxxxvi. 9: "All nations whom thou hast made 
 shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall 
 glorify thy name." This does not teach that any of 
 those nations will turn and come to the Lord after death! 
 Neither does the passage teach that every individual 
 member of those nations will ever come and worship 
 before him. His position is a mere assumption with- 
 out proof . I would take his word were he to testify 
 to an occurrence, if I had no knowledge of it myself, 
 for I have confidence in his word, but in matters of 
 this kind I must have proof . He could not prove any 
 moral change in the future world if his eternal destiny 
 depended upon it! I might stop right here, and give 
 him all the remainder of the time, and he would fail 
 to prove this assumption of his. As he utterly fails 
 in this, at the same time admitting that some go into 
 the future world unjustified, he utterly fails to sus- 
 tain his proposition. Moreover, as he has asserted 
 that all die sinful, and as he will fail to prove any 
 moral change in the future world, it follows as a con- 
 sequence of his doctrine that the human family will be 
 universally lost! I deny that sheol, when used to repre- 
 sent future punishment, will ever be destroyed. As to 
 
98 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 the number of hells about which he enquires, I will say 
 that when I come to my proposition I will abundantly 
 prove a hell as represented by sheol, gehenna, and 
 hades, so we will let that matter rest for the present. 
 He says he does not believe in a vicarious, limited 
 atonement. The fact is, he does not believe in any 
 atonement being made by the death of Christ at all. 
 In the atonement as typified by the Jewish offerings, 
 the sins of the people were ceremonially put upon the 
 head of the scapegoat (Lev. xvi. 21). There is noth- 
 ing in the Universalist doctrine that corresponds with 
 this. In the antitype, "The L,ord hath laid on him 
 the iniquity of us all" (Isa. liii. 6); "for the trans- 
 gression of my people was he stricken" (verse 8); "he 
 shall bear their iniquities" (verse 11); "he bare the 
 sins of many" (verse 12); "this is my blood of the 
 New Testament, which is shed for many for the re- 
 mission of sins" (Matt. xxvi. 28); "he hath made 
 him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, than we might 
 be made the righteousness of God in him" (II Cor. 
 v. 21); "who gave himself for us, that he might re- 
 deem us from all iniquity" (Titus ii. 14); "who his 
 own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree' ' 
 (I Peter ii. 24). This is the atonement of the Bible 
 which Brother Hughes says is "too abhorrent, too 
 monstrous in every sense ; wounding every sensibility 
 of righteousness, outraging every sense of justice." 
 One who makes such an assertion in the face of these 
 plain scriptural declarations regarding the atonement, 
 is raiher to be pitied than blamed ! 
 
 He is unable to show that any benefit is confer- 
 red upon sinners by the death of Christ according to 
 
MR. DAILY* S FIFTH REPLY. 99 
 
 his doctrine. He says it is moral in its effects in the 
 sense that it commends God's love to men. How 
 does it commend God's love to men when it does not 
 remove or mittigate any punishment they deserve, 
 when it does not deliver them from sin in any sense, 
 save them from death, from the grave or hell? If 
 men are saved because punished sufficiently, would 
 they not have been saved as well without the death 
 of Christ as with it ? He knows they would ! Then 
 the death of Christ is no benefit to sinners. As it is 
 no benefit it is useless. The love of God would not 
 be commended by the useless death of Christ. Again 
 the death of Christ does not win the love of sinners and 
 reconcile them to God if punishment inflicted upon 
 them is the instrument that brings them. This is 
 wholly inconsistent, and Brother Hughes will forever 
 fail to clear the inconsistency. 
 
 He says creation alone does not make us the children 
 of God. This is another s'hift. He first took the po- 
 sition that we are the children of God because God 
 created us in his image. I showed that this distinc- 
 tion between the creation of man and the beast made 
 man a creature of a higher order, but no less a creat- 
 ure, and that if this creation rendered man a child of 
 God brute creatures are his children also. He now r 
 says creation alone does not make us children, and 
 asks why I "cannot understand his speech." How 
 can I understand his speech when he employs it in say- 
 ing that creation in God's image made us his children 
 and afterwards in declaring that creation alone did 
 not make us his children f Who can understand such 
 speech ? If creation alone did not, what more is used 
 
IOO FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 in connection with creation to make us the children of 
 God? Can he tell ? He assumes that, because it is 
 said that he is the "Father of spirits," he is the Father 
 of all spirits. He is the Father of the spirits that are 
 born again or born of him, but that is no proof that 
 he is the Father of all spirits. If he is, he is the Fa- 
 ther of the spirits of the brute creation. He has ar- 
 gued that being born of God does not make us his 
 children by relation, that it simply makes us his chil- 
 dren characteristically. Then I ask him again, What 
 is done in connection with creation to make our spirits 
 the children of God, if being born of God has nothing 
 to do with it ? 
 
 He says there is taught in the Bible both forgive- 
 ness and punishment. That is true, but in the sense 
 in which punishment is inflicted upon the sinner 
 his sins are not forgiven. If a sinner is punished for 
 his sins and forgiven at the same time, the •for- 
 giveness is in a different sense and from a different 
 stand-point from the punishment. This fact is 
 clearly shown by the first text he used: Psalm xcix. 
 8 : "Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though 
 thou tookest vengeance of their inventions." In 
 answer to Moses, Aaron and Samuel, mentioned 
 in this connection, the Iyord repeatedly spared 
 the nation of Israel and so forgave their sins, not 
 punishing them for them, yet he took vengeance 
 on the ringleaders of rebellion among them, not for- 
 giving them but punishing them for their rebellion. 
 Korah, Dathan and Abiram are examples. The next 
 text quoted as supposed proof of the absurd idea that 
 sinners are punished as much as tlq.ey deserve and yet 
 
MR. DAISY'S FIFTH REPLY. IOI 
 
 forgiven is Isa. xl. 2 : "For she hath received at the 
 Lord's hands double for all her sins." How could 
 the servant of God comfort his people by telling them 
 they would be doubly punished for every sin they 
 commit ? By the misapplication of the text Brother 
 Hughes makes it appear that God not only punishes 
 all as much as they deserve for all their sins, but that 
 he inflicts double punishment — going beyond what they 
 deserve! How forgiving his God is, and what mercy 
 he displays! ! ! The meaning of the text is that the 
 people of God receive the washing away of their sins 
 by the blood of Christ and also a new heart and na- 
 ture. They are not only made clean by the blood of 
 the "Captain of their salvation" who accomplishes 
 their victory for them, but a new nature is imparted 
 to them. Though they are sinners, yet they thus re- 
 ceive double blessings, which the prophet was author- 
 ized to publish for their comfort. Here is forgiveness 
 and mercy displayed. But the doctrine of Brother 
 Hughes admits of neither mercy nor forgiveness. 
 
 God in exercising parental government over his 
 people chastises them for their sins. The apostle says, 
 "If ye be without chastisement, ye are bastards and 
 not sons." This is not a full punishment designed as 
 an atonement for their sins, but a fatherly correction 
 for their good here. Punishment designed as an 
 atonement was inflicted upon Christ who "bore their 
 sins in his own body on the tree." It was in this 
 sense of fatherly correction that "every disobedience 
 received a just recompense of reward" on the part of 
 national Israel. In that sense their disobedience 
 was not forgiven. Over his enemies God exercises 
 
102 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 judicial authority and punishes them as the}^ deserve 
 to be. To that kind of punishmint I will give atten- 
 tion in the discussion of my proposition. 
 
 I now take the position that punishment is not in- 
 flicted upon sinners in this life in proportion to the 
 sins they commit. Brother Hughes holds they are 
 punished here, and the punishment of some will con- 
 tinue hereafter to a limited period just as it is inflicted 
 here. I propose to demonstrate the absurdity and 
 falsity of this theory. 
 
 i st. Sinners are not punished here in their pttysi- 
 cal bodies in proportion to their sins, for some who 
 are wicked suffer less in that respect than some of the 
 righteous. There are wicked people who suffer very 
 little from desease and pain, while there are many 
 righteous people who suffer a great deal in that res- 
 pect. 
 
 2d. Sinners do not suffer in their conscience in 
 proportion to their sins, for the farther one goes in the 
 practice of sin the more hardened his conscience be- 
 comes and the less he suffers in that respect. Take the 
 case of the confirmed drunkard. He may have been 
 somewhat touched in the early stage of his dissipation t 
 but as he pursues his dissipated course he feels it less 
 and less. Convince him that he is being punished as 
 much as his sins deserve and he will be likely to ex- 
 claim, "Give me more liquor! Give me more liquor! I 
 can stand the punishment!' ' Those who are in love with 
 sin enjoy the practice of it, and thus they continue in it 
 in preference to living a religious life. If this state is 
 to continue in the future world, as Mr. Huges' posi- 
 tion implies, there can be no reason for supposing there 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIFTH REPLY. 103 
 
 will be an}' change in their feelings or in the degree of 
 their punishment. Sinners are not punished, then, 
 in proportion to their sins, either in their bodies or 
 conscience, from the standpoint of Universalism . 
 
 In attempting to answer my argument on the state- 
 ment of Christ to the unbelieving Jews, that they 
 should die in their sins, and could not go where he 
 went, Brother Hughes quoted John xiii. 33, where 
 Christ said to his disciples, "Little children, yet a 
 little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me ; and as 
 I said unto the Jews, whither I go ye cannot come, so 
 now I say unto you." While the words are similar 
 the circumstances differ, and the results are not the 
 same. Peter said to Christ, "Lord, whither goest 
 thou?" Jesus answered him, "Whither I go ye can- 
 not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me after- 
 wards." The evident meaning is that he was com- 
 pelled to die alone, that they could not be with him 
 in that. This was the reason they could not go where 
 he went at that time. But he comforts them with 
 the assurance that they should follow afterwards. He 
 never said such a thing to the unbelieving Jews. He 
 gave as a reason wlty they could not come to him, 
 that they "should die in their sins." . 
 
 He joins issue with me and says the circumstance 
 of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable. Christ 
 never used a circumstance as a parable that was un- 
 real, or that had no existence in fact. So if this is a 
 parable it was a real occurrence used to illustrate a 
 spiritual truth. But there is no intimation that it is 
 a parable, and in the absence of that we cannot agree 
 with Brother Hughes. As a further argument on 
 
104 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 this circumstance I will say that the Jews believed in 
 the doctrine of punishment after death, and they be- 
 lieved this punishment was endless. Mr. Balford a 
 noted Universalist writer, calls this a heathen notion. 
 He says, "Now I admit that to this heathen notion 
 our Lord might allude in the parable before us. The 
 Jews had, in our Lord's day, imbibed many heathen 
 notions and this among the rest." Josephus says 
 ' 'They believe that souls have an immortal vigor in 
 them, and that under the earth there will be rewards 
 and punishment, according as they have lived virtu- 
 ously or viciously in this life ; the latter are to be de- 
 tained in an everlasting prison, but the former shall 
 have power to revive and live again/' 
 
 Now, knowing this was the Jewish belief, our 
 Saviour, instead of correcting it, which he would have 
 done had it been altogether false, confirmed them in 
 there opinion by using the circumstance of the rich 
 man and Lazarus. In this lesson he even added to their 
 information in an important way. He taught that 
 even the Jews would be subjected to this state of 
 misery after death by speaking of one of their number 
 who suffered in that state after he died. Mr. Whitt- 
 more says, "Let it be distinctly understood, that it 
 is our opinion that Jesus introduced those views of 
 hades which the Jews had received from the heathen, 
 and used them in a parabolic sense to illustrate his 
 instructions." Now if Christ found this belief preva- 
 lent among the Jews, would he not have plainly point- 
 ed out the error if it had been erroneous ? Instead of 
 correcting them, he admitted their opinion of future 
 punishment, used their language, and added to the in- 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIFTH REPLY. 105 
 
 tensity of their notions of hell. He believed in endless 
 punishment or he did not. If he did, then Universal- 
 ism is a positive error. If he did not, then — but I 
 forbear to finish the sentence. It is blasphemy to say 
 he did not, for such an assertion would represent him 
 as a deceiver of the people, failing to correct an error 
 that is claimed to be dishonoring to God and unsafe 
 to man, and even going so far as to illustrate that 
 very doctrine in a familiar way. 
 
 Mr. Hughes' interpretation of the account of the rich 
 man and Lazarus, that the rich man represents the 
 house of Israel and the beggar the Gentile nation, is 
 both absurd and false for the following reasons: 
 
 1. In the history, as recorded by the inspiration of 
 God, both the rich man and Lazarus died. If the 
 interpretation given by Brother Hughes were correct 
 only one would have died — the beggar was already 
 dead. And when the rich man died by losing all his 
 advantages, the beggar, by obtaining them, of course 
 came to life. Instead of placing the rich man in hell, 
 and sending Lazarus into Abraham's bosom, the Sav- 
 iour, on the ground of Universalism, would have placed 
 the beggar in the rich man's house and put the rich 
 man at his gate, to beg a few crumbs from the table of 
 Lazarus. 
 
 2. His interpretation represents the Jews as beg- 
 ging now for the gospel privileges enjoyed by the 
 Gentiles, just as the rich man begged, "Father Abra- 
 ham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he 
 may dip the tip of his finger in the water, and cool 
 my tongue." This represents the Jewish nation as 
 thirsting intensely for gospel privileges. This ought 
 
I06 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 to be sufficient to prove to all honest minds that the 
 interpretation given by my opponent is false and ri- 
 diculous. The Jews, as a nation, have never acknowl- 
 edged that the gospel of Christ is the true faith, and 
 they have never intimated that they desire its bless- 
 ings and privileges. 
 
 3. The explanation makes it utterly impossible for 
 the Jews ever to be converted to the true faith. It 
 matters not how much he may desire to be a christian 
 or how much the christian may desire to reach him 
 with the gospel aud comfort him, such a thing can 
 never be, for the gulf is fixed. How any one can be- 
 lieve this absurd interpretation with this fact before 
 him is the greatest of mysteries. 
 
 4. If the rich man was a type of the Jewish nation 
 his request for Lazarus to be sent to his five brethren 
 who were yet upon earth, lest they also should come 
 into the place of torment where he was, was perfectly 
 absurd. He wanted Lazarus sent to his father's house. 
 If he was the Jewish nation, Abraham was his father, 
 and the house of Abraham was his family of children. 
 If he was the Jewish nation, and Lazarus was the 
 Gentile nation, then they represented the entire hu- 
 man family, and there could have been no brethren of 
 the rich man on earth. 
 
 5. All who care to do so ma)' read the entire ac- 
 count and substitute the term Jewish nation for the 
 rich man, and the term Gentile nation for Lazarus, 
 wherever these words occur, and the absurdity of 
 that position will be plain. 
 
 Negative Argument XII. My twelvth argument 
 is that the basis upon which this proposition is made 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIFTH REPLY. 107 
 
 to rest is false, as it sets aside entirely the forgiveness 
 of sins and predicates the theory that punishment re- 
 sults in holiness and happiness. Suffering the penalty 
 of law does not remove guilt and render the guilt} in- 
 nocent of the sins they commit. A sinner could not 
 be made innocent by suffering, though his suffering 
 should be continued to an infinite duration. If the 
 theory of my opponent be correct, and heaven is 
 filled with beings who have reached that place merely 
 through punishment, it will be filled with guilty per- 
 sons, and not an innocent being will be there of all 
 the human family. 
 
 The forgiveness of sins is synonymous with the for- 
 giveness of debts. Luke xi. 12 : "And forgive us our 
 sins ; for we forgive ever}- one that is indebted to us." 
 Matt. vi. 12 : "And forgive us our debts, as we for- 
 give our debtors." 
 
 Can there be forgiveness of debt and the debtor be 
 still required to settle the debt? Suppose A to be in 
 debt to B to the amount of $1000. Suppose B should 
 say to A, I forgive you the debt you owe me. Of 
 course A would be happy in the supposed release from 
 the debt by the mercy and kindness of his creditor. 
 But suppose B should then saj^ to A, I forgave you 
 the debt, but you must pay the $1000 in full. Would 
 not A consider B a falsifier ? What benefit would 
 such forgiveness be to him ? [ Time expired. 
 
I08 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 MR. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
 men : — It has been a long, long time since I had the 
 book of Matthew, Hale Smith* thrust into my face. 
 Every one who is acquainted with the history of that 
 man knows that after his renunciation of Universal- 
 ism he went back again into the Universalist church, 
 and after that recanted again. And I do not know 
 where he did finally land. But this I know, that he 
 was wholly unreliable, and that he misrepresented 
 Ballou's Ancient History of Universalism. Origen 
 believed in the salvation of all mankind, and whoever 
 believes that is a Universalist. No one contends that 
 he held all points as the church does now. But I 
 very much doubt whether he would have denied any 
 of the essential points of the church. 
 
 I have shown you that there was, within the first 
 four hundred years after Christ and his apostles, six 
 theological schools, and four out of the six taught 
 Universalism. That down to the days of St. Augus- 
 tine "there was a large number with human feelings, 
 who compassionated the eternal punishment of the 
 damned, and so believed it would not take place." 
 And that those who held the views of Origen were 
 probably in the majority. So I cannot see how the 
 name of the church cuts any figure in the case, so 
 long as the doctrine was in the church as I have 
 proved it was. The only authority cited by my friend 
 is Matthew Hale Smith, a renegade from the Univer- 
 salist church, who recanted his recantation ! ! 
 
MR. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. 109 
 
 But he thinks that if Universalism had been taught 
 by Jesus and his apostles, the church would have been 
 called a Universalist church. That does not follow. 
 Can he tell what was the distinctive name of the 
 church in those days ? It was not called the Baptist 
 church. So his logic would destroy his own church. 
 According to the best learned in church history, Uni- 
 versalism was taught by Christ and his apostles. The 
 doctrine diminished in the dark ages, for Universalism 
 and ignorance and superstition are not compatible. 
 But when light and knowledge and freedom came, it 
 began to grow again. And I know it to be a fact, as 
 do many here today, of ministers coming into the 
 Universalist church from the Primitive Baptist church, 
 and bringing their whole congregations with them. 
 
 But he says that I contradicted myself in saying 
 that the unjust go into the future state unjust. What 
 I said was that I deny that there will be any unjust 
 beyond the resurrection, and that is the point for him 
 to meet. I am not assuming death makes any change 
 in one's moral condition, and he knows it. 
 
 He denies that the phrase "all the ends of the 
 world" means all mankind. I think it does, just as 
 in the kindred passage, "All nations whom thou hast 
 made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, 
 and shall glorify thy name." Ps. lxxxvi. 9. If 
 words mean anything, this surely means the whole 
 human family, for there are no nations whom God 
 did not make. "He made of one blood all nations of 
 men to dwell on all the face of the earth." Acts xvii. 
 26. I see no way to limit these passages. And if 
 they are unlimited, my proposition is true. Then if 
 
IIO FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 "the gospel was preached to the dead that they might 
 be judged according to men in the flesh, but live ac- 
 cording to God in the spirit" (I Pet. iv. 6.) then there 
 is a proclamation of salvation in the spirit world to bring 
 them to repentance. So if all men do not remember 
 and turn unto the Lord in this life, the proof is that 
 they will in the future. 
 
 About relationship to God, he says, some are bas- 
 tards and not sons. The passage in Hebrews says, 
 "If ye be without chastisement whereof all are par- 
 takers, then are ye bastards and not sons." Heb. xii, 
 9. To be without chastisement is not a supposable 
 case ; for all are partakers of it, and therefore there 
 are no bastards. All are children. But we are told 
 that God holds the relationship of Judge to mankind. 
 True ; but it is the Father who is Judge ! 
 
 Bro. Daily does not believe in infant damnation. 
 All children who die in infancy are elect, I suppose ; 
 and how does it happen that none of the non-elect ever 
 die in infancy ? And to what greater accountability 
 do the non-elect acquire by living to manhood ? If 
 "man by nature is spiritually bound with chains, 
 shut up in darkness, and in a prison house," how can 
 he acquire any accountability should he live to be as 
 old as Methuselah? Brother Daily denies that he 
 prosecutes this discussion on the grounds of Armin- 
 ianism, and yet he talks about Universalism leading 
 sinful men to love it because they then can be sinful 
 without any "'hazard" of final consequences. What 
 hazard is there according to his "system?" Can any 
 man change his future condition to a hairsbreadth if 
 Calvinism is true ? Can the elect do anything to en- 
 
MR. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. Ill 
 
 danger their salvation ? Can the non-elect do anything 
 to change God's decree that was made before the 
 world was that consigns them to everlasting fire? 
 
 No ; I do not believe in a limited vicarious atone- 
 ment ; much less in the ' 'Particular atonement' ' of the 
 Primitive Baptist church, which represents Christ as 
 taking upon himself "the sins themselves" of the elect, 
 and so makes Jesus a sinner ; which to my mind is 
 revolting, immoral and blasphemous ! The doctrine is 
 that "the principal part of the punishment of sin con- 
 sists in a sense of guilt, and of Divine wrath ; but 
 neither of these could Immanuel have endured, unless 
 he had borne our sins themselves." See Particular 
 Redemption, p. 65. So that the sins of the elect were 
 "transfered to him" And yet we are told he was 
 "without sin." Heb. iv. 15. The doctrine that 
 makes Christ "guilty " and to bear "Divine wrath," 
 I reject with abhorrence, and am quite willing to bear 
 the blame of it, and desire no pity ! 
 
 The passages wmich speak of Christ "bearing our 
 sins," quoted by my friend, he misapplies In Matt, 
 viii. 16, 17, it is said, "and he healed all that were 
 sick ; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 
 Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmi- 
 ties, and bare our sicknesses." Christ bore their 
 sickness and infirmities by healing them. He did not 
 become sick in their stead, not did he suffer the pains 
 of their diseases. Just so he bears our sins by curing 
 them. Will he tell you how an infinately Holy Being 
 can become sinful, and suffer divine wrath ? And 
 where is the justice in putting the punishmont of the 
 guilty on an innocent being ? Is he willing to follow 
 
112 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 • 
 
 Christ's example in suffering for guilty persons ? 
 "For even hereunto were ye called ; because Christ 
 also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye 
 should follow his steps, I Peter ii. 21. 
 
 The word atonement occurs but once in all the New 
 Testament, and there it means reconciliation. Rom. 
 v. 11. And there man receives it and not God. "By 
 whom we have now received the atonement." So 
 again Paul teaches "that God was in Christ reconcil- 
 ing the world unto himself." II Cor. v. 19. So the 
 atonement is moral and to affect men, not God. It 
 is to "bring us to God," as St Peter says, I Peter iii- 
 18. We are reconciled to God by the death of his 
 Son, but to be saved by his life. Rom. v. 10. 
 
 My friend makes quite an effort on the rich man 
 and Lazarus, but it avails him nothing. In all he 
 says, he makes no reply to the reasons I adduced in 
 proof of its being a parable. But should I admit his 
 contention that it is an actual occurrence, when the 
 time comes that ''Hades gives up the dead which are 
 in it/' and it is destroyed, (Rev. xx. 13, 14.) it can 
 no longer serve his purpose as an argument for end- 
 less torment. And right here he should give some 
 attention. But he does not. But being a parable, 
 he should remember that the rule is that "a parable 
 does not run on all fours," and that a particular con- 
 struction is not to be forced upon every part of its 
 imagery. In answer to his points : the direct applica- 
 tion of the parable was to the Scribes and Pharisees, 
 and sinners to whom it was addressed, and the "five 
 brethren" were brought in to show its general appli- 
 cation to the nation. 
 
MR. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. 1 13 
 
 The rich man did not appeal for gospel privileges. 
 He was a Jew, and recognized as such. The death of 
 both represents their change of condition. The 
 kingdom of God was taken from one and given to the 
 other; and the believing Gentile is "blessed with faith- 
 ful Abraham." Gal. iii. 9. The Jew was rejected 
 from the house of Abraham. It was said unto them, 
 "Behold your house is left unto you desolate." Matt, 
 xxiii. 39. Jerusalem is in possession of the Gentiles, 
 and it is to be trodden down by them, until the times 
 of the Gentiles be fulfilled 
 
 Part only of the Jews believed in endless punish- 
 ment. The Saducees did not. But Jesus did not use 
 their terms to describe punishment as I expect to 
 show. Besides he condemned the doctrine of both 
 sects of the Jews. Matt. xvi. 6. "Beware of the 
 leaven of the Pharisees and the Saducees." And by 
 this he meant the "doctrine of the Pharisees and Sad- 
 ucees." Verse 12. 
 
 Brother Daily's attempted reply to my argument 
 on punishment and forgiveness, I must say, is a com- 
 plete failure. In Psalm xcix. 8, he tries to make it 
 appear that God took vengeance of one set of persons, 
 and forgave another. Whereas it is the same persons 
 that are both punished and forgiven. And in Isaiah 
 xl. 2, he would have you believe it was blessings that 
 came upon Jerusalem, instead of punishment, for all 
 her sins. I never learned before that men were to be 
 doubly blessed for their wickedness. Jeremiah the 
 Prophet has it quite different ; "First I will recom- 
 pence their iniquity and their sin double, because they 
 have defiled my land, they have filled mine inheritance 
 
114 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 with the carcasses of their detestable and abominable 
 things." Jer. xvi. 18. And he does not mean bless- 
 ings. But he means as does Amos, when he says, "I 
 will punish you for all your iniquities." iii. 2. I am 
 not understanding the word double as meaning twice 
 as much as deserved, but used for emphasis and to 
 the full amount. 
 
 A question for Brother Daily. As God will not 
 forgive the sins of the nonelect, but punish them to 
 all eternit}r, and as he exacted a full punishment for 
 the sins of the elect on his Son Jesus Christ, where 
 then is there forgiveness for any sin ? And if the 
 forgiveness of sins is synonymous with the forgiveness 
 of debt, and Jesus paid the debt, where then is there 
 any forgiveness of punishment according to his system. 
 
 When a debt is forgiven it is not paid, and when 
 my friend finds a passage that says that punishment is 
 forgiven, I will yield the point. There ma) 7 be a ne- 
 cessity of forgiving penalty in an imperfect human 
 government, but not in the divinely perfect govern- 
 ment of God. His punishments are all just. To re- 
 move them would be unjust, and as they are meant for 
 reformation, unmerciful as well. "Unto thee, O Lord, 
 belongeth mercy ; for thou rendereth unto every man 
 according to his works." Ps. lxii. 12. 
 
 I have never taken the position, nor have I ever 
 believed that men are saved because they have been 
 fully punished ; or that there is any saving grace in 
 punishment. And Mr. Daily's 12th argument is with- 
 out point. I believe in punishment as a discipline, 
 as a restraint, as a corrective, and that "God chastens 
 for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holi- 
 
SIXTH SPEECH. 1 15 
 
 ness." Heb. xii. 10. So far it is contributory to 
 reformation, and there is no need of its forgiveness, 
 as under the system of endless punishment. 
 
 I insist that it is my friend's '"system" that makes 
 punishment for salvation, for if Jesus had not suffered 
 the whole penalty deserved b}- the elect, even they 
 would not be saved. And in his second speech he 
 says of the words, "vengeance belongs to God," and 
 and that "God is a consuming fire," that this applies 
 to those who are born again ; it is to be considered as 
 "purifying the gold and destroying the dross." If 
 that does not teach that punishment is a saving pro- 
 cess, then I cannot understand language. And Bro. 
 Daily, thou art the man ! You seem to think that 
 punishment is a means of grace with the elect, but of 
 destruction to the wicked. 
 
 XI. Argument. 
 
 I now advance to my eleventh argument. 
 
 "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are 
 not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be re- 
 vealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature 
 waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the 
 creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by 
 reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Because 
 the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage 
 of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 
 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth 
 in pain together until now. And not only they but ourselves 
 also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we our- 
 selves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to 
 wit, the redemption of our body. ' ' Rom. viii. 18-23. 
 - 1. Man is the creature mentioned here ; the ration- 
 al creation, mankind in general. Prof. Stuart says, 
 "I have satisfied my own mind, that ktisis (creature) 
 
Il6 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 here means as in Mark. xvi. 15, and Col. i. 23, man- 
 kind in general, in distinction from, but not in oppo- 
 sition to christians as such." Man is the only crea- 
 ture of whom it can be said, that he was made "sub- 
 ject to vanity," yet "in hope," with "an earnest ex- 
 pectation," and is finally to be "delivered into the 
 glorious liberty of the children of God." 
 
 2. The glorious liberty of the children of God, in- 
 to which the creature is to be delivered, means the 
 final deliverance or salvation from the bondage of cor- 
 ruption in which the whole creation groans and sighs 
 for in its present imperfect state. It means the final 
 holiness and happiness of all mankind. 
 
 XII. Argument. 
 
 My twelfth argument is drawm from Rom. xi. 25, 
 26. 
 
 "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of 
 this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; 
 that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness 
 of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: 
 as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the deliverer, 
 and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my 
 covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As 
 concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but 
 as touching the election, they are beloved for the Father's 
 sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repent- 
 ance. For as ye in times past have not believed, yet have 
 now obtained mercy through their unbelief; even so have 
 these also not now believed, that through your mercy they 
 may also obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all 
 in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the 
 depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of 
 God ! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways 
 past finding out ! For of him, and through him, are all 
 things: to whom be glory forever. " 
 
MR. HUGHES SIXTH SPEECH. 117 
 
 i. With the apostles the Jew and the Gentile com- 
 prise the two divisions of the whole human family . 
 
 2. When the "fullness of the Gentiles come in" and 
 1 'all Isreal are saved, ' ' that makes complete the re- 
 demption of the world. 
 
 3. The blindness, and fall through unbelief of 
 Israel is not a valid objection to their final salvation. 
 For though "enemies as concerning the gospel," 
 "they are beloved for the Father's sake," in accord- 
 ance with the "election" in which there is no change 
 of God's purpose. His gifts and callings are without 
 repentance. 
 
 4. The stubborn unbelief and disobedience of both 
 Jew and Gentile, is not conclusive as against their 
 final recovery, "For he hath concluded them all in 
 unbelief that he might have mercy upon all" 
 
 5. All in accordance with the purpose of him 
 "unto whom are all things." 
 
 The Jews had been the peculiar people of God. 
 The divine oracles were given to them to be extended 
 to the other nations of mankind. But when the Christ 
 came they rejected him. But this chapter tells us that 
 though blinded and cut off, yet they were to be finally 
 restored, and all Israel — blinded Israel — was to be 
 saved. As Jesus said in the Temple, "Behold your 
 house is left unto you desolate: For ye shall not see 
 me henceforth, till ye shall say, blessed is he that 
 cometh in the name of the Lord." Matt, xxiii. 38, 
 39. This shows that the saying, "Whither I go ye 
 cannot come," was not pronouncing their final doom; 
 for though long years of desolation were to come upon 
 them, yet finally they were to welcome the Lord's 
 
Il8 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 coming, saying, "Blessed is he that cometh in the 
 name of the Lord." 
 
 Go back if you please to the garden of Eden to the 
 offence by which sin entered into the world, and you 
 find the first promise. "And I will put enmity 
 between thee and the woman, and between thy seed 
 and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt 
 bruise his heel." Gen. iii. 15. Sin is finally to be 
 destroyed, and man victorious. The wound in the 
 head is mortal. "For this purpose was the Son of 
 God manifested, that he might destroy the works of 
 the devil." I John iii. 8. "Seventy weeks are deter- 
 mined upon thy people, and thy holy city, to finish 
 the transgression, and make an end of sins, and to 
 make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in ever- 
 lasting righteousness." Dan. ix. 24. Sin being 
 brought to an end, holiness and happiness will be 
 universal. [Time expired. 
 
 MR. DAILY'S SIXTH REPLY. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audi- 
 ence, and Worthy Opponent : — I have had a very 
 pleasant rest for a half hour, and now I am ready to 
 resume the negative side of the question which we are 
 discussing. I desire to treat my brother with fair- 
 ness, and aim to answer everything that is pertinent 
 or that has any connection with the question under 
 discussion. He has been making an effort, it seems, 
 to draw me from the question. He is trying to drag 
 into this discussion a discussion of the doctrine of elec- 
 
MR. DAILY'S SIXTH REPLY. IIQ 
 
 tion and depravity. I understand that quite well. 
 We are discussing his doctrine of the endless holiness 
 and happiness of all the human family. He is in the 
 affirmative and I am in the negative, and I intend to 
 confine myself to that doctrine. 
 
 He makes a desperate effort to cling to the views of 
 Origen as affording proof that the doctrine of Univer- 
 salism existed from an early day, though the church 
 did not. He admits that Origin did not believe as he 
 does, but says he "doubts very much whether he 
 would have denied any of the essential points held by 
 the church." The fact is, it is now exceedingly 
 doubtful just what Origen believed. Rufinus, in his 
 apology for Origen, alleges, that his writings were 
 maliciously falsified by the heretics, and that, in con- 
 sequence thereof, many errors were attributed to him 
 which he did not adopt ; as also, that the opinions, in 
 which he differed from the doctrine of the church, 
 were only proposed by him as curious conjectures." 
 Mosheim's Church History, Vol. I p. 90. If he held 
 that "the torments of the damned will end," that was 
 one opinion in which he differed from the church. 
 He is said to have taught that "the Scriptures are of 
 little use to those who understand them as they are 
 written ;" "that the sun, moon and stars were anima- 
 ted and endowed with rational souls ;" and "that 
 after the resurrection all bodies will be of a round 
 shape." But Brother Hughes has admitted that the 
 Universalis! church, in the early days of Christianity, 
 did not exist so far as the organized church is concerned. 
 This is yielding the point, and his play upon 
 the name made in his last speech amounts to nothing. 
 
120 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 The church of Christ did exist from the beginning of 
 Christianity. The Universalist church did not exist 
 as an organization in the early days of Christianity 
 (saying nothing about the name). The conclusion is 
 that the doctrine of this proposition, which is the distinc- 
 tive doctrine of the Universalist church, was not taught 
 by Christ and his apostles! ! As to theological schools, 
 they, like Origen, taught errors for which the church 
 was not responsible. 
 
 He says, ''The doctrine diminished in the dark ages, 
 for Universalism and ignorance and superstition are 
 not compatible. But when light and knowledge and 
 freedom came, it began to grow again." So we are 
 to understand that all who do not understand his doc- 
 are destitute of light and knowledge, and are enveloped 
 in ignorance and superstition! All the world was in 
 this lamentable state, notwithstanding the learning 
 and piety of so many that then lived, until fohn 
 Murray arose and founded the Universalist church, a 
 church that had never ezisted before ; a?id the reason 
 people will not receive that doctrine now is that they are 
 ignorant and SUPERSTITIOUS, and lack ught and 
 KNOWLEDGE ! ! 
 
 He denies that ai^ will be unjust beyond the resur- 
 rection, at the same time asserting that death does 
 not make any change in one's moral condition. Then, 
 as he has taken the position that all the human family 
 die sinful, he must believe that ev-ry one will be 
 changed in the future world and no?ie here! But I 
 have proved that the unjust will be raised from the 
 dead, so there ivill be that ?nany, at least, who will not 
 be changed between death and the resurrection! 
 
MR. DAISY'S SIXTH REPLY. 121 
 
 All nations that God has made will come and wor- 
 ship before him, but this does not signify that every 
 individual of all those nations will do so, neither does 
 it prove that the change of any will take place after 
 they die. God will have a people ' 'redeemed out of 
 every kindred, and tongue, and nation," which is 
 conclusive proof that all in those nations are not re- 
 deemed. 
 
 He says he does not believe in a limited, vicarious 
 atonement. He has failed to show how Christ's 
 death benefits us in the least. He denies that the 
 death of Christ releases us from punishment, from 
 death, from sinni?ig, from hell or from anything else! 
 If that is true, his death is no atonement at all. 
 What application to his doctrine could he make of the 
 type of the scapegoat ? None whatever. We would 
 have suffered as much if Christ had not died, we 
 would have been as certainly saved if he had not died, 
 so we receive no benefit whatever from his death. As 
 his death is absolutely useless, it does not commend the 
 love of God to us! 
 
 He attempts to seek refuge in the statement that 
 Christ bore the sickness of the people by curing them, 
 and the assumed parallel position that he bore the sins 
 of sinners by curing them. I ask how Christ cures 
 the sins of sinners. Sins are acts of violation of 
 God's law already committed, and he says the sinners 
 who commit them are punished fully for them. Then 
 no sinner is cured of any si?is committed. He cannot 
 show any cure for sins committed that Christ ever 
 affects according to his doctrine. 
 
122 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 He argues from the passage, "But if ye be without 
 chastisements, whereof all are partakers, then ye are 
 bastards and not sons," that it is proof that all are 
 sons, for all are partakers of chastisement. Now if 
 all universally were partakers of chastisements, would 
 Paul have said, "If ye be without chastisements?" If 
 all universally were sons, would he have said, "Ye 
 are bastards, and not sons, if ye be without chastise- 
 ments?" The fact is, all are not children who pro- 
 fess to be. All the children of God are partakers of 
 chastisements. Those who profess to be sons and are 
 not, are without chastisements. This proves them to 
 be "bastards." A case must be tveak indeed that re- 
 quires such perversion of a plain text to support it! 
 
 He say the doctrine of both sects of the Jews were 
 condemned by Christ. He only condemned that 
 which was false. But in his presentation of the cir- 
 cumstance of the rich man and Lazarus, he acknow- 
 ledged their views of future punishment and enforced 
 the same by the use of that circumstance. My argu- 
 ment on that he has failed to meet, and the inconsis- 
 tencies of his view of it as shown by me he has not 
 cleared up. 
 
 I come again to punishment and forgiveness. He 
 claims that my reply to his argument was a complete 
 failure. I deny that Psalm xcix. 8 teaches that the 
 persons who were punished were forgiven the sins for 
 which they were punished. Such a thing could not 
 be. It is a positive contradiction within itself. Any 
 one can see that if a sinner is punished and made to 
 snffer for his sins those sins are not forgiven! But he 
 asks where is there forgiveness of the elect if Christ 
 
mr. dairy's sixth reply. 123 
 
 suffered for their sins. That is easily answered. As 
 Christ bore their sins in his own body on the tree and 
 put them away by the sacrifice of himself, dying for 
 them the just for the unjust, that he might bring them 
 to God, and being made to be sin for them, that they 
 might be made the righteousness of God in him, he 
 has the perfect right to forgive their sins and thus re- 
 lease them from punishment. If he should require 
 punishment of them after suffering for them himself, 
 there would be no forgiveness. If a surety pays the 
 debt of the principal, he has the legal right to forgive 
 the debt and not require it of him. The debtor could 
 not exact it, for that would be double payment. 
 
 In the case of the prophet being required to comfort 
 God's people on the assumption that they would have 
 to suffer doubly for all the sins they should commit 
 in a lifetime, the ridiculous absurdity of such a thing is 
 apparent to all. What comfort could there be in our 
 being informed that we must suffer for all the sins we 
 commit, even to the double extent of their deserts? 
 Then, too, what zvarfare would ever be accomplished 
 in such a case by us or any one else ? These are ques- 
 tions he can never answer. They present inconsisten- 
 cies he can never clear up. His effort to construe 
 this passage to teach his doctrine is evidence of the 
 desperate strain under which he is laboring, and procf 
 of the weakness of the cause he is trying in vain tj 
 bolster up. I must ask to be excused for even refej- 
 ing to the assertion made by him over and over, that 
 punishment is not forgiven. A?id he asks me to prou 
 that it is/// There is about as much sound reason in 
 speaking of punishment being forgiven or not forgiven. 
 
124 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 as there is in saying that the sins of a sinner are for- 
 given after he has been punished fully for committing 
 those sins ! 
 
 He says my twelfth argument is not in point, be- 
 cause he does not take the position that there is any 
 saving grace in punishment. The argument I made 
 was that punishment never can render the punished 
 innocent, and if sinners could be forgiven because 
 punished sufficiently they would still be guilty. 
 Neither punishment nor forgiveness renders the sinner 
 innocent. If heaven should be peopled by sinners 
 punished for their sins, and merely forgiven, it would 
 be peopled by guilty people and there would not be 
 an innocent person there. If there is anything done 
 for the sinner to render him pure and innocent, ac- 
 cording to Universalism, let Mr Hughes tell us what 
 it is that is done for him. 
 
 He pays no attention to my argument in which I 
 showed that sinners are not punished either in their 
 physical bodies or in their conscience according to the 
 sins they commit. As sinners enjoy a sinful state and 
 a sinful life here, may they not enjoy it in the world 
 to come if the same "punishment" is to continue 
 there? As they prefer that state and life to a 
 life of holiness here, will they not prefer it there if 
 there is no moral change affected by death ? I^et my 
 opponent attend to these questions. 
 
 In reply to his argument based upon Rom. viii. 18- 
 23, I deny that this has reference to the original crea- 
 tion of man. The creation mentioned here is the 
 new or spiritual creation accomplished in regeneration, 
 and the creature meant is the new creature in Christ 
 
MR. DAILY'S SIXTH REPLY. 125 
 
 referred to in II Cor. v. 17 : "Therefore if any man 
 be in Christ he is a new creature." The preceding 
 verses show this conclusively, 
 
 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, 
 that we are the children of God : and if children, then 
 heirs," &c. In the 20th verse the creature is said to 
 be "subjected in hope." Unchanged sinners are de- 
 clared to have no hope and to be without God in the 
 world. Eph. ii. 12. So the whole human family are 
 not included here, but only those who are subjected 
 in hope. The Greek word ktisis (creature) being 
 used here is no proof that the original creation is re- 
 ferred to, because the same word {ktisis) is employed 
 to designate the new creature mentioned in II Cor. v. 
 
 17. 
 
 When I closed my last speech I was on my twelfth 
 argument against this proposition. I argued that 
 suffering the penalty of the law or being forgiven of- 
 fences committed against the law, does not remove 
 guilt or render the guilty innocent. I have called 
 upon him time and again to show how punishment 
 can ever result in purity. He has failed to do it. I 
 require him to show it from the Bible or from the 
 standpoint of human reason if he can. I hope he will 
 give some attention to that in his next speech. If 
 punishment cannot result in purity, what more does 
 the Lord do for the sinner to make him pure ? Will 
 he tell us ? 
 
 To give the teaching of the Bible on this subject I 
 call your attention to Rom. iv. 7, 8 : "Blessed are 
 they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are 
 covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will 
 
126 Firs? proposition. 
 
 not impute sin." What is the covering for sin? My 
 opponent says it is punishment inflicted upon the 
 sinner Then the Lord imputes sins to that sinner. 
 But the text declares that the Lord will not impute 
 sin to that sinner whose sins are covered. To show 
 what the covering is I quote Isaiah liii. 6 : "All we 
 like sheep have gone astray ; we have turned every 
 one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on him 
 (Christ) the iniquity of us all." There is the cover- 
 ing for sin. It is in the atonement of Christ, for 
 which the system of my brother has no use. "Blessed 
 is the man unto whom the Lord will not impute sin." 
 There are those unto whom the Lord will not impute 
 sin, because their sins are covered. You sa3' God 
 will impute sins to everybody. The covering for sins 
 is the blood of Christ by which our sins are washed 
 away. I John i. 7 : "The blood of Jesus Christ his 
 Son cleanseth us from all sin." 9th verse : "He is 
 faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse 
 us from all unrighteousness." The blood of Christ 
 finds no place in the system of Universalism. In that 
 system Christ is no more than a mere figurehead. 
 There is no covering for sin in it, no washing aivay of 
 guilt. 
 
 Negative Argument XIII. I base my next argu- 
 ment against this proposition upon the ground that it 
 implies that all of every kindred, tongue, people and 
 nation, will be redeemed, (or would be if there were 
 any redemption in the system). This is a contradic- 
 tion of the song to be sung by the redeemed, as men- 
 tioned in Rev. v. 2: "And they sang a new song, say- 
 ing, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open 
 
MR. DAILY'S SIXTH REPLY. 127 
 
 the seals thereof : for thou wast slain, and hast re- 
 deemed us 10 God by thy blood out of every kindred, 
 and every tongue, and every people, and every nation. " 
 In all the arguments made in support of this proposi- 
 tion it has not been shown that any redemption from 
 sin has been accomplished, that dny ransom for sinners 
 has been given. On the contrary it has been argued 
 with all the ability possessed by my opponent, that 
 no redemption, no ransom, no payment made by Christ, 
 releases a single sinner from the aivful conseque?ices of 
 his sins. 
 
 This passage shows what is meant by "the whole 
 world" and "all men" so often referred to by Broth- 
 er Hughes, whom Christ is said to have come to save. 
 The fact that the children of God were redeemed out 
 of every kindred, tongue, people and nation, is proof 
 positive and certain that all of ev.ery kindred, tongue, 
 people and nation were not redeemed. Those redeem- 
 ed will be on the right hand when all nations are 
 gathered together before him, and to them he will 
 say, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the king- 
 dom prepared for you from the foundation of the 
 world." Those not thus redeemed will be on 
 the left hand, and to them he will say, "Depart from 
 me ye cursed, into everlasting fire." Will they form 
 a part of the "world" that Brother Hughes says 
 Christ will save? Is it from this fire that Christ 
 saves sinners ? 
 
 Negative Argument XIV. My. next argument is 
 that some are known b} T the Lord as his children, 
 while others are not thus known. 
 
128 FlRS? PROPOSITION. 
 
 Matt. xxi. 23 . "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, 
 Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that 
 doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will 
 say unto me in that day, Lord, have we not prophesied in 
 thy name ? and in thy name have cast out devils ? and in thy 
 name done many wonderful works ? And then will I profess 
 unto them, 1 never knew you ; depart from me, ye workers 
 of iniquity," 
 
 II Tim. ii. 17-19 : ' 'And their words will eat as doth a 
 canker : of whom is Hymenaeus and Philletui. Who con- 
 cerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection 
 js past already ; and overthrow the faith of some. Never- 
 theless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, 
 the Lord knoweth them that are his." 
 
 "The Iyord knoweth them that are his." That 
 proves that all are not his. As those mentioned in 
 Matt. xxi. 23 were never known by the I^ord, and as 
 he knows them that are his, it follows as an unavoid- 
 able conclusion that many will not be his and never 
 were. 
 
 Negative Argument xv. My next argument is 
 based on the nature of the work of redemption by 
 Christ. Eph. i. 7 : "In w r hom we have redemption 
 through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to 
 the riches of his grace." This redemption is unto 
 obedience. Titus ii. 14: "Who gave himself for 
 us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and 
 purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good 
 works." To be zealous of good works is to give 
 evidence that we have been redeemed from all iniquity 
 and purified by Christ. Many live and die who never 
 show any zeal for good works, but live and die in the 
 love and practice of sin. This proves they have never 
 been redeemed and purified by Christ. As there is no 
 
mr. daily's sixth reply. 129 
 
 change in the future world taught in the word of God, 
 this state will continue forever. 
 
 I will now attend to an argument made by my 
 opponent, based on the statement made in the nth 
 chapter of Romans, ''And so all Israel shall be saved : 
 as it is written there shall come out of Zion a deliv- 
 erer, and he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." 
 The great point in this text is that there shall come 
 a deliverer who shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob . 
 What my friend can find in that text to support his 
 theory, while he takes the position that no one, not 
 even Christ, can ever deliver any sinner from the 
 consequences of his sins, I am not able to see. I call 
 attention to Rom. ii. 28, 29 : "But he is not a Jew, 
 which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision 
 which is outward in the flesh : but he is a Jew, which 
 is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, 
 in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not 
 of men, but of God." Those who are Jews inwardly 
 are spiritual Jews, having the circumcision of the 
 heart, both Jews and Gentiles. Ungodliness is turned 
 away from them by the deliverer, for he "put away 
 their sin by the sacrifice of himself." These are the 
 people represented hy Jacob, of whom God says, 
 "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." 
 
 It is through the channel opened up by Christ that 
 the mercy of God flows down to guilty sinners. It is 
 by him that ungodliness shall be turned away from 
 Jacob or spiritual Israel. They had gone astray from 
 him like sheep, and the Lord laid on him all their 
 iniquity. This channel of mere}' is opened for all 
 poor hungry, thirsty sinners. All that mourn on 
 
130 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 account of sin are to be comforted by the assurance 
 that Jesus has bought and redeemed them by his pre- 
 cious blood. To be merciful to one is to treat him 
 better than he deserves to be treated. God says of 
 his people, "I will be merciful to their unrighteous- 
 ness, and their sins and their iniquities I will remem- 
 ber no more." Oh, what mercy is thus shown to 
 guilty ones through Jesus' blood ! On the other 
 side of this question it has been argued that God 
 treats no sinner any better than he deserves. Then 
 God shows mercy to none. What a blessing it is 
 that through the merits of the shed blood of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ there is a balm for aching hearts who 
 mourn over the guilt of sin ! Washed in the blood of 
 the Lamb, made clean through its cleansing efficacy, 
 the heaven born host of redeemed sinners will forever 
 chant the praises of him who gave himself to redeem 
 them from all their sins. [Time expired. 
 
 MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators: — I have but two more 
 speeches on this Proposition, so without waiting to 
 reply to my friend's last speech, I will introduce my 
 remaining affirmative arguments. 
 
 XIII. Abrahamic Promise. 
 
 Gen. xxii. 15-18. "And the angel of the Lord called unto 
 Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By my- 
 self have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast 
 done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only 
 son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I 
 
MR. HUGHES* SEVENTH SPEECH. 131 
 
 will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the 
 sand which is upon the sea shore, and thy seed shall possess 
 the gate of his enemies ; and in thy seed shall all the nations 
 of the earth be blessed." 
 
 Gen. xii. 3. "And in thy seed shall all the families of the 
 earth be blessed." 
 
 Acts iii. 25. "And in thy seed shall the kindreds of the 
 earth be blessed. " 
 
 1. The promise is universal in its terms. It is 
 "all nations," "all families," "all kindreds of the 
 earth." Language could not be more comprehensive. 
 
 2. The seed of Abraham is Christ. "And thy 
 seed which is Christ." Gal. iii. 16. And the prom- 
 ised blessing includes all the benefits to be conferred 
 upon men through Christ in this world and the future. 
 
 3. It includes salvation from sin in justification by 
 faith, and in turning men away from their iniquities. 
 "Unto you first God, having raised up his son Jesus, 
 sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of 
 you from his iniquities." Acts iii. 26. "So then they 
 which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham." 
 Gal. iii, 8, 9. 
 
 4. It includes the resurrection to life and immor- 
 tality. "And now I stand and am judged for the 
 hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, 
 unto which promise the twelve tribes, instantly serv- 
 ing God day and night hope to come. For which 
 hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. 
 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with 
 you that God should raise the dead?" Acts xxvi. 6-8. 
 The resurrection of all mankind to immortality is 
 then a promised blessing, and it cannot prove an end- 
 less curse to any. 
 
132 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 5. Will the promise be fulfilled? I answer, just as 
 surely as we have "two immutable things, in which 
 it is impossible for God to lie," his word confirmed 
 by an oath. Heb. xi. 13-20. God himself speaks of 
 it as a matter fixed in the counsels of heaven: "See- 
 ing that Abraham shall surely become a great and 
 mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall 
 be blessed in him. Gen. xviii. 18. 
 
 XIV. Jesus' Reply to the Saducees. 
 
 ' 'Jesus answering said unto them, the children of this 
 world marry, and are given in marriage; but they which 
 shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the res- 
 urrection from the dead neither marry, nor are given in 
 marriage; neither can they die any more; for they are equal 
 unto the angels ; and are the children of God, being the 
 children of the resurrection. Now that the dead are raised, 
 even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, 
 the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of 
 Jacob. For he is not the God of the dead but of the living ; 
 for all live unto him." Luke xx. 34-38. 
 
 A record is also found in Matt. xxii. 18-32, and 
 Mark. xii. 18-27. 
 
 1 . Jesus here teaches the resurrection of ' 'the dead. ' ' 
 In Matthew it is; "But as touching the resurrection 
 oi the dead" In Mark, "And as touching the dead, 
 that they rise." Winer in his Greek grammar of the 
 New Testament defines ki hoi nekroi" the phrase ren- 
 dered "the dead," as a definite multitude. And Dr. 
 Whedon in his comments on these words says ; "The 
 resurrection of the dead would signify the resurrection 
 of the totality of the race." So I take the distinct 
 position that Jesus here speaks of a universal resurrec- 
 tion. 
 
 
MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 1 33 
 
 2. The resurrection is to be to an equality with 
 the angels ; and men are to be the children of God in 
 the very highest sense, "being the children of the res- 
 urrection." This can be no less than the final holi- 
 ness of all men. 
 
 3 . The resurrection is to a state of immortality ; 
 "Neither can they die any more." It is to an endless 
 state. 
 
 The Greek word katarizo rendered ''accounted 
 worthy' ' does not limit the resurrection to a part of 
 mankind. It is rendered in the Revised Version, 
 "But they that are accounted worthy," and all are 
 accounted worthy just as surely as the phrase "the 
 dead" means a definite multitude. And all three 
 Evangelists use that phrase here. The Emphatic 
 Diaglott renders the word in question, "But those 
 having been accounted worthy." And so the passage 
 would read ; "The children of this world marry and 
 are given in marriage, but they having been accounted 
 worthy to obtain thac world and the resurrection of 
 the dead" &c. And so the children of this world are 
 accounted worthy of the resurrection from the dead. 
 
 XV. Argument. 
 
 My 15th and last argument is the resurrection and 
 consummation as taught by St Paul, in I Cor. xv. 22- 
 28. 
 
 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
 alive. But every man in his own order; Christ the first 
 fruits ; afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming. 
 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the 
 kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put 
 down all rule and all authority and power. For he must 
 reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last 
 
134 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all 
 things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put 
 under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put 
 all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued 
 unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto 
 him that put all things under him, that God may be all in 
 all." 
 
 i. The apostle here teaches the resurrection of all 
 mankind. 
 
 2. That all shall be made alive in Christ. "As in 
 Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. ' ' 
 
 3. The phrase in Christ means &j n stifled state. ''He 
 that is in Christ is a newcreatue." II Cor. v. 17. To 
 be made alive in Christ is to be made alive ' 'in the 
 image of the heavenly." Verse 49. It is the exact 
 equivalent of Rom. v. 19, where it is said, "Many — all 
 mankind — shall be made righteous." It is a complete 
 fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise that all the fam- 
 ilies of the earth shall be blessed in his seed, which 
 is Christ. 
 
 4 By the resurrection of all mankind to life and 
 immortality shall death the last enemy be destroyed. 
 Death being destroyed by a universal resurrection, it 
 being the last enemy, it follows that there will be no 
 enemies to man beyond the resurrection. The last effort 
 of destroying power gives to all men immortality. It 
 follows, therefore, that men are not in the catalogue 
 of enemies destroyed. 
 
 6. The resurrection will be to a state of glory, incor- 
 ruption, and power, in spiritual bodies. " It is sown 
 in corruption, it is raised in incorruption ; it is sown 
 in dishonor, it is raised in glory ; it is sown in weak- 
 ness, it is raised in power ; it is sown a natural body, 
 it is raised a spiritual body," Verses 42 — 44. 
 
/ 
 
 MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 1 35 
 
 7. We are taught here that there is to be a subjec- 
 tion to Christ in such universal sense, that God the 
 Father only is excepted, and in such manner that God 
 will be ''all in all." Verse 28. And as all are to be 
 made alive in Christ, all men to be subdued to him, 
 and God in the final consummation "all in all, the 
 only conclusion is the final holiness and happiness of 
 the whole family of mankind. 
 
 8. This resurrection is to a state of incorruptibility 
 and immortality , and so it is to a final and unending 
 condition. 
 
 I will now pay some attention to my friend's last 
 speech. He has a very great deal to say about my 
 "system," and introduces a great many negative 
 arguments. But he has very little to" say about my 
 affirmative arguments. There can be but one reason 
 for all this. It is much easier to do the work he is 
 doing than to reply to arguments he cannot meet, and 
 more than that, cannot be met. His course is a tacit 
 admission of that fact. He could not proclaim it 
 louder on the house tops ! 
 
 How does it affect the proposition in hand, if I do 
 not believe in the forgiveness of just punishment for 
 sin ? Suppose God does forgive punishment, is that 
 in the way of universal forgiveness ? Just how does 
 his logic hitch on here ? 
 
 But suppose I am altogether wrong about the 
 atonement and he is right about how it affects the sin- 
 ner, and I prove b)^ the scriptures that it is universal; 
 is not universal salvation just as sure as the decree of 
 Jehovah? Take a passage already quoted with its 
 connection: "For this is good and acceptable in the 
 
136 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be 
 saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth. 
 For there is one God, and one Mediator between God 
 and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a 
 ransom for all to be testified in due time." Take the 
 very construction of this passage. God set over 
 against men, whom God wills the salvation of, accord- 
 ing to his love for the world, whom he sent his Son 
 to save, and whom therefore he gave for a ransom. 
 Or take the text in I. John ii. 2 : "Who is a propitia- 
 tion for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the 
 sins of the whole world." Christians are spoken of 
 separate and apart from the world , but the world is 
 included in the propitiation. I gave the general usage 
 of the term world, demonstrating its universal mean- 
 ing in my fourth speech, but to this hour my friend 
 has never had the courage to face it, even in a small 
 degree to reply to it. Here I hold he is in a corner 
 and cannot extricate himself, whatever he may say 
 about my system. Note the following syllogysm : 
 
 1. All for whom Christ died will be saved. 
 
 2. But Christ died for all mankind. 
 
 3. Therefore all mankind will be saved. 
 
 The first premise my friend believes ; the second I 
 have proved ; the conclusion he cannot escape try he 
 never so hard. 
 
 Now would not Brother Daily do a much more 
 legitimate work if he would take up my arguments, 
 and show if possible their f allacy ? If he should do 
 that, my "system" would fall at once, and he would 
 have done what has never yet been done. But as long 
 as he fights shy of these arguments his work falls of 
 
MR. HUGHES SEVENTH SPEECH. 137 
 
 its own weight ; for there are thousands who believe 
 in the "final restitution of all things," who neverthe- 
 less believe in the vicarious atonement and in the for- 
 giveness of punishment. My arguments are before 
 him, every point numbered and convenient to his hand. 
 
 As to Origen, there can be no doubt about his Uni- 
 versalism. It is true he was vilely misrepresented by 
 his enemies. But this same Rufinus bears witness to 
 that effect and quotes passages given by Origen in 
 proof of the final salvation of all : as, Ps. ex. 1, I Cor. 
 xv. 25 — 28, Ps. lxxii. 1. And Mosheim says of Ori- 
 gen, "Certainly if any man deserves to stand first in 
 the catalogue of saints and martyrs, and to be annu- 
 ally held up as an example of Christians, this is the 
 man. For, except the apostles of Jesus Christ, and 
 their companions, I know of no one, among all those 
 enrolled as saints, who excelled him in virtue and holi- 
 ness." Historical Commentary on Christianity, Vol- 
 II. page 149. 
 
 To say that I have "admitted" that the early 
 church was not called the Universalist church, is to 
 *mply that I had held sometime to the contrary. But 
 he knows better. And he ought to treat me as 
 though I have at least common sense. But can he 
 give the name of the church then? Was it the 
 Primitive Baptist Church, ox any other modern church? 
 Is this a case of a blind Samson pulling down the 
 temple to his own destruction? 
 
 But why should any particular doctrine give name 
 to the ancient church? Or what has this to do with 
 any particular doctrine? He says the schools of that 
 day taught error. But I am inclined to think that 
 
138 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 those teachers of young ministers knew more about 
 the real teachings of Christ than Bro. Daily. 
 
 Universalism did decline during the dark ages, and 
 it did revive again as light, knowledge, and liberty be- 
 gan to shed their blessings upon humanity. But be it 
 remembered, I made no insinuations against those 
 who do not receive it. Friend Daily's bombast to the 
 contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 To assert the resurrection of the unjust does not 
 prove that they will be raised unjust, since "All shall 
 be made alive in Christ.'' I Cor. xv. 22. I believe all 
 will die sinful to the extent, "if we say we have no sin, 
 we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.,, 
 I John i, 8. And there is need of a change after death. 
 
 I have taken the position that the atonement is 
 moral in its effects, and saves from sin through faith 
 and repentance, and I believe it will be effectual in 
 bringing us to God ; and that the free gift will come 
 upon all mm ttnto justification of life, and that "the 
 many shall be made righteous." Rom, v. 18, 19. He 
 makes no distinction between the forgiveness of sin 
 and the forgiveness of punishment. And so the cu- 
 ring of sin means the saving from punishment that 
 sin deserves. When Christ cured the sick did he save 
 them from the pains of sickness ? I think not. Cure 
 the disease and all its pains cease as a consequence. 
 
 But if God will punish Israel for all their iniquities, 
 will he forgive none of them? Is it true that "God 
 will reward every man according to his deeds" (Rom. 
 ii. 6.) ? If so, how does he forgive the punishment 
 for their bad deeds ? I insist that nowhere in the 
 Bible do we read of the forgiveness of punishment. It 
 
MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 1 39 
 
 is the forgiveness of sin; and "whatsoever a man 
 soweth, that shall he also reap." Gal. vi. 7. 
 
 I do not pervert Heb. xii. 8, for it says distinctly 
 of chastisement, "whereof all are partakers," and there 
 are no bastards. ' 'Whom the I^ord loveth he chasten - 
 eth , ' ' and God loves all men . 
 
 He denies that Ps. xcix. 8 teaches that the persons 
 who were punished were forgiven. Well, that text 
 says, "Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though 
 thou tookest vengeance of their inventions." He and 
 the psalmist for it. I believe the latter. It is a 
 strange way to forgive a debt to collect it from anoth- 
 er party. When Christ assumed the sins of the elect 
 he became the sinner and they became innocent. He 
 became "guilty and had a sense of the divine wrath." 
 He deserved the penalty and received it to the full. 
 And seeing the penalty was executed, where was the 
 forgiveness? This is but a scheme to justify the un- 
 godly, and condemn the just, and I commend to my 
 friend Prov. xvii. 15 : 
 
 ' 'He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth 
 the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord." 
 
 I explained my understanding of the word "doub- 
 le," Isa. xl. 2, as a just or full amount, and it is not 
 very giacious in Bro. Daily to represent that I believe 
 sinners are to be punished to "double extent, "of what 
 they deserve. Bishop Home says, "Very frequently a 
 certain or an indefinite number is put for an uncertain 
 or an indefinite number. Thus we find double for 
 for much or sufficient in Isa.xl. 2," However it is 
 the prophet who uses that word, as does Jer.xvi. 18. 
 
140 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 Just now I am debating the question of punishment, 
 only to give a little diversion to my friend. He says, 
 ' 'Sinners enjoy a sinful state and a sinful life here," 
 and asks if they will not enjoy it hereafter. Certainly 
 according to his position. For he says there will be 
 no change after death. He says sin is their natural 
 element, and that they enjoy it. So I think the best 
 we can say is, that hell will be their heaven! But I 
 think he is mistaken. I believe that "The wa}' of the 
 transgressor is hard." Prov. xiii. 15. And that 
 "there is no peace to the w T icked." And I wish my 
 friend to notice that God says so. Isa. lvii. 20, 21. 
 
 Punishment does not restore men to favor only so 
 far as it induces repentance, and so brings forgiveness. 
 
 I have not advocated punishment as bringing 
 purity, as I have before explained. But he will keep 
 right on saying that I do, whatever may be my 
 denial! It is my friend who teaches that the divine 
 vengeance and fire burns out the sin in the elect ; and 
 he is the man to explain how punishment brings 
 purity. 
 
 In reply to my argument on Rom. viii. 18, 23, 
 he denys the word ' 'creature' ' refers to the original 
 creation. But where is your proof? He says it 
 means the new or spiritial creation. That is pure as- 
 sertion. I demand the proof! Bro. Daily your as- 
 sertions have gone to protest; you have over drawn 
 your credit. When was the new creation made subject 
 to vanity? And how does the newly converted Christ- 
 ians make up the "whole creation" which groans and 
 travails in pain until the time of the Apostles? The 
 word ktisis when applied to christians has the word 
 
MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 141 
 
 "new" before it. "He that is in Christ is a new 
 creature." II Cor. v. 17. Christians in a special 
 sense have hope. But there is also a general sense in 
 which the whole groaning, travailing creation has the 
 instinctive hope of deliverance. The general sense of 
 the word creature is found in Col. i. 15, "Who is the 
 image of the invisible God the first born of every 
 creature; and in the commission. "Preach the gospel to 
 every creature." Math. xvi. 15. 
 
 In nrv friend's thirteenth argument, he refers to 
 Rev. v. 9, referring to redemption as he thinks 
 limited. "Out of every kindred, and every tongue, 
 and every people, and every nation." If it were not 
 for the limiting phrase "out of," would that phrase- 
 ology then mean all mankind? I have been giving him 
 those phrases all along in this debate, as "all the kind- 
 reds of the earth. ' "All nations wh)m thou hast 
 made," "every knee, every tongue." In none of 
 these is found the limiting word, "out of." I de- 
 mand then to know what does limit them ! Is there 
 any thing in the texts, their contents, or the nature of 
 the subjects to limit them? If not I claim the natural 
 force and meaning of those phrases in accordance with 
 the well known laws of language. And I say there 
 has been no attempt to meet mj T position here, and 
 logically the whole question turns at this point. But 
 let us look at Rev. v. 9. There was a time when the 
 limitation was just, but it is not always to be true. 
 
 Christ's reign had but just commenced. The King- 
 dom was but as a grain of mustard seed, and he is to 
 reign until he subdues all things to himself. But the 
 Revelator has another view, and the number has in- 
 
142 FIRST PROPOSITION 
 
 creased to "ten thousand times ten thousand, and 
 thousands of thousands. And yet there is something 
 far grander and more glorious; the ver\ thing 
 towards which my whole argument has been looking 
 forward. "And every creature which is in heaven, 
 and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as 
 are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I say- 
 ing, Blessing and honor, and glory, and power, be un- 
 to him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the 
 Ivamb forever and ever." Rev. v. 13. I submit this 
 was a most unfortunate reference for my friend, and 
 here is the fulfillment of my proposition. No limita- 
 tion here. 
 
 All the point there is in Brother Daily's 14th and 
 15th arguments is in the assertion that according to 
 God's word there is no change in the future world. 
 But this again is only assertion. One may not be a 
 child of God spiritually at one time, and become so at 
 another. Christ's reign is a progressive one. All 
 who die in Adam, will be made alive in Christ. Christ 
 preached to spirits in prison, when he himself was a 
 spirit. He preached to the dead spoken of in contrast 
 with "men in the flesh," that they might live accord- 
 ing to God in the spirit. The whole of Christain 
 antiquity had but one interpretation of these texts for 
 the first four hundred years. 
 
 He says it was spiritual Israel referred to by Paul in 
 saying "all Israel shall be saved." But it was blind- 
 ed Israel he speaks of. "Bh'ndness is happened to 
 Israel, and so all Israel shall be saved." — [Time 
 expired. 
 
MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPLY. 143 
 
 MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPEY. 
 
 Gentleman Moderators And Respected Au- 
 dience:- As this is to be my last speech in which I 
 purpose making any new arguments, I intend to come 
 to my remaining negative arguments as soon as I can. 
 
 I am surprised that my learned friend has more to 
 say about punishment being forgiven! He claims that 
 punishment is not forgiven, and accuses me of believ- 
 ing it is forgiven. Forgiveness cannot be applied to 
 punishment, for punishment is the infliction of the 
 penalty for sin, whatever that penalty is. It is not 
 punishment until inflicted, and so there is no such 
 thing as forgiveness of it. Evidently he is confused 
 when he speaks of the forgiveness of punish7ne?it. If he 
 were not something of a scholar, this blunder would 
 be no great surprise to me. I suppose him to mean 
 release from deserved punishment, but forgive- 
 ness is not at all applicable to such release. It applies 
 only to sins or offences, and necessarily secures release 
 from deserved punishment. So the scriptures declare, 
 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the 
 forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his 
 grace." Eph. 1. 7. It is the redemption price of 
 Christ's blood as a ransom for sinners that secures the 
 forgiveness of sins and a consequent release from de- 
 served punishment. 
 
 To make any foundation for his argument, that all 
 the human family will be saved because, as he says, 
 Christ died for all of them, he is forced to suppose 
 that he is wrong about the atonement and that I am 
 
144 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 right! He knows he does not believe that Christ's 
 death was an}^ ransom for sinners or that there was 
 any atonement made by his death. All he says about 
 the "moral effects" of the atonement amounts to 
 nothing if there was no atonement made. How that 
 death has any thing to do with bringing sinners to 
 faith and repentance he cannot show. The death of 
 the thief on the cross had as much to do in the salva- 
 tion of sinners as the death of Christ according to 
 Universalism. If there is a man in America who can 
 show how Christ's death saves sinners, that man is 
 Mr. Hughes, for he is the ablest man they have. As 
 he cannot tell we are forced to conclude that no Uni- 
 versalist can. He does not really believe either ' of 
 the premises of his syllogysm, for he does not believe 
 Christ died for any one So he is compelled to sup- 
 pose I am right and he is wrong about the atonement 
 to give any semblance of force to his argument. 
 
 But I enter my denial that the scriptures used by 
 him in supposed proof of the second premise of his 
 syllogysm (on the supposition that I am right about 
 the atonement and he is wrong) mean every individual 
 member of the human family. Let us take I Tim. 
 ii. 4: "Who will have all men to be saved," &c. 
 Paul had exhorted Timothy to make supplications and 
 prayers for all men, giving thanks for them, by which 
 is not meant every individual, for prayer is forbidden 
 to be made for such as have "sinned unto death," (I 
 John v. 16) and we are not to give thanks for wicked 
 men and persecutors. All classes of men are meant as 
 the following verse shows, "For kings, and all that are 
 in authority." So God will have all men to be saved, 
 
MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPLY. 145 
 
 that is all sorts or ranks of men, men of every rank 
 and quality, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond 
 and free. The passage, "Who gave himself a ram son 
 for all," is fatal to his theory, for he denies that any 
 ram son was made for sinners. He gave himself a 
 ransom for all the children of the promise represented 
 by Jacob whom God loved, and for whom Christ died, 
 as he said, "I lay down my life for the sheep." 
 
 Take the other passage, "And he is the propitiation 
 for our sins, and not for ours only, but also fcr the 
 sins of the whole world." Propitiation means satis- 
 faction rendered by an atonement. This rr^ friend 
 does not believe. He argues that our sins are pro- 
 pitiated for by our suffering all" they deserve ourselves. 
 But he is now supposing I am right and he is wrong to 
 enable him to build an argument on this text. The 
 meaning is, not only the Jews, for John was a Jew 
 as well as those directly addressed, but also for the 
 Gentiles as "the world". Christ is the advocate of 
 all those for whom he is the propitiation, for it is 
 said, "We have an advocate with the Father, Christ 
 Jesus the righteous." Verse 1. There is a "world" 
 for which Christ did not pray (John xvii. 9), so he is 
 not the advocate for that "world." He is not, then, 
 their propitiation. As to my friend's argument that 
 world always means the people separate and apart 
 from the righteous, I will say that is true when thes e 
 two classes are considered together, but that is no 
 proof that it is so in all cases. I deny that the term 
 is so used here, for the two classes are not considered- 
 
 Origen was "enchanted 03^ the charms of the Pla- 
 tonic philosophy, set it up as the test of all religions, 
 
146 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 and imagined that the reasons for each doctrine were 
 to be found in that favorite philosophy, and their na- 
 ture and extent to be determined by it." Mosheim's 
 History, Vol. I. page 86. So Brother Hughes is 
 welcome to all the comfort he can get from claiming 
 Origen. But he waxes warm in referring to my 
 calling attention to his admission that the church was 
 not called the Universalist church in the apostolic day, 
 saying it implied that he had "held sometime to the 
 contrary," and claiming that I ought to treat him as 
 though he has common sense at least. This is an 
 admission that he has never held that the church was 
 called the Universalist church. But he not only ad- 
 mitted it was not called that, but admitted it was not 
 in existence as an organized body. This is his lan- 
 guage, "But the Universalist church did not exist in 
 the early days of Christianity. This I know very well 
 so far as the organized church is concerned." See 
 page 83 of this book. Then not onfy was the church 
 not known by the name Universalist church, but such 
 a church did not exist as an organized church. That 
 being true the doctrine of this proposition was not the 
 doctrine of Christ and his apostles. I have called 
 upon him to show that any church made any declara- 
 tion of faith which included the doctrine of Univer- 
 salism prior to the days of John Murray. He re- 
 mains silent, and will remain so so far as that demand 
 is concerned. He may wax as warm as he pleases, 
 he cannot escape the force of this argument, which 
 destroys all his claim to being apostolic in his teaching 
 of the doctrine of Universalism. 
 
MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPLY. 147 
 
 All will die sinful, he says, and argues there is need 
 of a change after death. This change he has argued 
 is. affected by Christ's preaching to the, spirits in the 
 future world. None will be changed here, then, b}^ 
 the preaching of those sent out under the commission. 
 Yet some will be just after death and others unjust, 
 and will remain so until the resurrection! It seems 
 to be his opinion that the change will be made by the 
 resurrection, and yet he argues that preaching brings 
 about the change, and }^et it comes through faith and 
 repentance, but not until every one is punished as 
 much as he should be! He says punishment restores 
 men to favor "so far as it induces repentance, 
 and so brings forgiveness." Well, if punishment 
 restores men to favor to the extent that it results in 
 forgiveness, then how does the death of Christ or the 
 preaching of the gospel have any thing to do with 
 bringing about this result, and why is any resurrection 
 necessary? Let him answer. 
 
 Are sinners punished in their physical bodies Avith 
 suffering in this life, or in their consience, or both, in 
 proportion to their wickedness? He knows they are 
 not. Do they that love sin delight in it more than 
 they could enjoy trying to live a religious life? If the 
 things they endure here are meant for punishment, and 
 this state is to be continued in the future world, may 
 we not conclude they will prefer it there to a pure life? 
 If they enjoy that state hereafter as they do here, will 
 punishment of that kind ever induce repentance and 
 bring forgiveness? . . 
 
 I showed most conclusively that the creature men- 
 tioned in Rom. viii. 19 — 22 is used with reference to 
 
1 48 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 those who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them, 
 by which they cry, Abba, Father, which bears witness 
 with their spirits that they are the children of God. 
 These are subjected in hope, while others have no 
 hope (I. Thes. iv. 13), and all unchanged sinners 
 have no hope and are without God in the world (Eph. 
 ii. 12). They are made subject to vanity through 
 the sinfulness of the body, but they groan within 
 themselves while they wait for the redemption of 
 their bodies in the resurrection. 
 
 He quotes, "He that justifieth the wicked, and he 
 that condemneth the just, even they both are abomina- 
 tion to the Lord," to try to make it appear that Christ 
 being made to be sin for us, thus bearing our sins in 
 his own body on the tree, and giving himself for us f 
 the just for the unjust, would all be "an abomination 
 to the Lord." It is not, however, for it God's own 
 arrangement, as taught in his word. 
 
 In the 5th chapter of Rev. the four and twenty 
 elders represent the redeemed family of God, who 
 were redeemed out of every kindred, and tongue, and 
 people, and nation. This eternal redemption was ob- 
 tained before Christ went to heaven, or when he died 
 on the cross. Heb. ix. 12. The ten thousand times 
 ten thousand and thousands of thousands, were the 
 angels, who said nothing about being redeemed. 
 Every creature in heaven, and on earth, and under 
 the earth, and in the sea, embrace all objects of 
 creation, which declare by their very existence the 
 power and wisdom and riches and strength and honor 
 and glory of God and the Lamb, just as "the heavens 
 declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth 
 
MR. DAILY S SEVENTH REPLY. 1 49 
 
 his handiwork." Not one word is said by these ob- 
 jects of creation about being redeemed. None spoke 
 of being redeemed except the ones redeemed out of 
 every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. 
 As these were redeemed out of these classes, which 
 embrace the entire human race as classes, all these 
 classes were not redeemed. 
 
 I shall now attend to his argument on the Abra- 
 hamic promise. He assumes that, as the promise 
 embraces all nations, all families, and all kindreds of 
 the earth, every individual member of the human 
 family is embraced in the promise and thus included 
 in the blessing. It is not really required of me to 
 prove this inference false, for he has not proved it 
 true and he cannot prove it. All families and nations 
 may be blessed and yet every individual member of all 
 families and nations not be blessed. But I propose 
 to prove it false and turn the argument against him. 
 
 Gal. iii. 7 9: "Know ye therefore that they which 
 are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham- 
 And the scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify 
 the heathen through faith, preached the gospel be- 
 fore unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be 
 blessed. So then they that be of faith are blessed 
 with faithful Abraham." 
 
 "All men have not faith." II Thess. iii 2. My 
 opponent will forever fail to prove that all will ever 
 have faith. This proves to a conclusive demonstra- 
 tion that the blessings promised to Abraham are res- 
 tricted. This fact is further shown in the address 
 made to Abraham in Gen. xii. 3 : "I will bless them 
 that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.'' 
 
150 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 In Gal. iii. 29, the apostle shows the promise to be 
 restricted. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra- 
 ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." if 
 all were Christ's he would not have used this form of 
 expression. He would have said, "As all are Christ's, 
 all are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the 
 promise." The construction of the sentence clearly 
 implies that all are not Christ's, and therefore not 
 Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise. If 
 he denies this he does so at the risk of his reputation 
 for scholarship. "The children of the flesh, these are 
 net the children of God, but the children of the 
 promise are counted for the seed." This is proof 
 positive and unmistakable that all are not the children 
 of God, and so are not the children of the promise. 
 
 Another inference drawn by him is that this prom- 
 ise involves the resurrection to life and immortality. 
 Now will he tell us what is raised to life and immor- 
 tality ? The spirit he says is the child of God and 
 has always been, possessing the divine image which it 
 has never lost. Then the spirit already posseses life 
 and immortality. What, then, is raised to life and 
 and immortality ? He talks a great deal about a 
 resurrection, and seems to believe that the immortal 
 part of man will be raised to immortality! He seems 
 to think there is no period between the death of each 
 and the resurrection, and this resurrection will be a 
 progressive affair, and that eac.i spirit was destitute of 
 life and of immortality till raised to it ; that it was 
 dead and mortal till raised. Then I suppose the 
 death of the righteous and wicked are alike, and a 
 like change will be needed in each class in the future 
 
MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPLY. I51 
 
 world. I demand that he make these things clear in 
 his next speech if he can. 
 
 In his thirteenth argument, which is based on 
 Christ's reply to the Sadducees, he labors very hard 
 to show that the expression, "they which shall be ac= 
 counted worthy to obtain that world and the resur- 
 rection of the dead/' is not restrictive. This involves 
 him in the absurdit}' of arguing that restricted lan- 
 guage is not restricted. It seems he would regard his 
 scholorship too highly to risk it in such a venture. 
 It is evident that the desire to bolster up a sinking 
 cause predominates over every other consideration 
 with my friend ! The rendering given in the Em- 
 phatic Diaglott, in which a participial phrase "having 
 been accounted worthy," is used instead of the clause, 
 "which shall be accounted worthy," is not at all in 
 his favor, for the phrase is restrictive as well as the 
 clause. 
 
 He says Jesus here teaches the resurrection of the 
 dead, emphasizing "the dead." I demand that he 
 tell us what is dead after the spirit separates from the 
 body, the spirit or the body ! If it is the body, what 
 does he mean by the resurrection of "the dead?" 
 
 His last argument is based upon the teaching found 
 in the 15th chapter of I Cor. : "As in Adam all die, 
 even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The res- 
 urrection of the body is referred to in this passage. 
 This is evident from the fact that mention is made of 
 the resurrection of Christ's body in this connection. 
 Paul speaks of the first Adam and the last Adam. 
 Each of these is spoken of as a representative. As all 
 connected with the first Adam die in consequence of 
 
152 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 his fall, so all connected with the last Adam, Christ, 
 shall be made alive in the resurrection. Such is 
 plainly indicated in the 23d verse. This proves there 
 is a restriction, and that some will not be Christ's at 
 his coming. My friend can deny this only at the 
 peril of his reputation for scholarship. We are not 
 left in doubt about some being Christ's while others 
 are not his. Gal. v. 24 
 
 "They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh 
 with its affections and lusts." It follows that those 
 who never crucify the flesh with its affections and 
 lusts are not Christ's. But that some are not Christ's 
 is proved in a most positive way by Rom. viii. 9 : 
 "But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be 
 that the Spirit God of dwell in you. Now if any 
 man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." 
 The resurrection taught in this chapter is restricted 
 to those who are Christ's. The teaching of this pas- 
 sage is, As in Adam all that are his die, even so in 
 Christ all that are his shall be made alive. 
 
 As further proof that Paul does not teach that all 
 who die in Adam shall be raised to incorruption, 
 glory, honor, immortality and victory, I call attention 
 to the address in the 50th verse: "Now this I say* 
 brethren." He said to these brethren, "As we have 
 borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the 
 image of the heavenly." The brethren were the 
 saints at Rome, who were beloved of God and called 
 to be saints. Chap, i, verse 7. So I reason he was 
 alluding to people who are beloved of God and called 
 to be saints. These are the ones who will be Christ's 
 at his coming. 
 
MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPLY. I 53 
 
 He argues that death is to be destroyed. I ask 
 him this question : Will death ever be destroyed if 
 the body that is held by death is never raised ? If 
 the only part of man that dies at death, that goes 
 down into death, is never raised to life, will death 
 ever be destroyed ? Is the mere lifting up of the 
 living any destruction of death ? These are questions 
 for him to think about. I demand a plain answer to 
 them in his next speech. 
 
 Negative Argument XVI. My sixteenth negative 
 argument is based upon the unpardonable sin. 
 
 Matt. xii. 31, 32: "Wherefore I say unto you, all manner 
 of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the 
 blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto 
 men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of 
 man, it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh 
 against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, neither 
 in this world, neither in the world to come." 
 
 Mark hi. 29 : * 'But he that shall blaspheme against the 
 Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eter- 
 nal damnation." 
 
 Mark's statement of the language of Christ is very 
 clear, and sustains Matthew's record that the sins 
 spoken of here are not to be forgiven in this world or 
 in the world to come, and Jesus asserts that those 
 who commit it are in danger of eternal damnation. 
 The word danger is from the Greek enochos, which 
 signifies liable to or subject to. They could not be 
 liable to what did not exist. As those who commit 
 this sin have never forgiveness but are liable or sub- 
 ject to eternal damnation, it follows that some will 
 not be finally holy and happy. If eternal damnation 
 does not exist, and none are liable to such a state, 
 
154 FIRST PROPOSITION. ' 
 
 then Christ was a deceiver. It is necessary to prove 
 him such to sustain the doctrine of Universalism.- 
 
 Negative Argument XVII. My last argument in 
 the negative of this proposition is that the destruction 
 of the wicked by sudden death, as the antediluvians 
 by the flood, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah 
 by fire, and the overthrow of Pharaoh and his hosts 
 by waters of the sea, is the greatest blessings that 
 could befall them according to this doctrine, for it 
 ushers them out of this world of suffering to one 
 where Christ will be their preacher, by whom they 
 will doubtless soon be converted from a sinful course 
 and brought to enjoy endless holiness and happiness, 
 while the righteous will be left to suffer on here, only 
 to die sinful at last and go into the future world to be 
 changed just as the wicked will be. The wicked had 
 the decided advantage of Noah and IyOt and the 
 Israelites, for they were wafted on the waters and the 
 fire to a state where their advantages far excelled the 
 righteous, while the latter had to continue to suffer 
 in this world of sin and sorrow. I will read a poem 
 t hat illustrates this in a clear way. 
 
 Thus Pharoah and his mighty hosts 
 
 Had God-like honors given : 
 A pleasant breeze brought them with ease 
 
 And took them safe to heaven. 
 
 So all the filthy Sodomites, 
 
 When God bade I,ot retire, 
 Went in a thrice to paradise, 
 
 On rapid wings of fire. 
 
MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPEY. 155 
 
 Likewise the guilty Canaanites, 
 
 To Joshua's sword were given : 
 The sun stood still that he might kill 
 
 And pack them off to heaven. 
 
 God saw those villians were too bad 
 
 To own that fruitful land : 
 He therefore took the rascals up 
 
 To dwell at his right hand. 
 
 The men who lived before the flood 
 
 Were made to feel the rod ; 
 They missed the ark, but, like a lark, 
 
 Were washed right up to God. 
 
 But Noah he, because you see, 
 
 Much grace to him was given, 
 Was forced to toil and till the soil, 
 
 And work his way to heaven. 
 
 The wicked Jews, who did refuse, 
 
 The Lord's command to do, 
 Were hurried straight to heaven's gate, 
 
 By Titus and his crew. 
 
 How happy is the sinner's state, 
 
 When he from earth is driven ; 
 He knows it is his certain fate 
 
 To go direct to heaven. 
 
 There's Judas too, another Jew, 
 Whom some suppose accursed ; 
 
 Yet with a cord he beat his Lord, 
 And got to heaven first. 
 
I56 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 I want yonr attention now to a kind of summary of 
 some of the things we been considering. I begin this 
 summary in this speech so I will have time to finish 
 it in the next. We differ in regard to the process by 
 which people are made holy and happy. He says 
 that punishment inflicted upon the sinner "induces 
 repentance and so brings forgiveness," and that in 
 this way men are restored to favor. I claim that the 
 sins of those are forgiven whose sins the Lord does 
 not impute to them, and whose sins are covered by 
 the atonement of Christ, as declared by David and 
 quoted and explained by Paul. "Even as David also 
 describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom 
 God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, 
 Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and 
 whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom 
 the Lord will not impute sins. " He has no use for 
 any covering made by Christ's atonement, and so can 
 give no explanation of such passages as teach this 
 important truth. All the covering he has for sin is 
 the infliction of punishment upon the sinner, which 
 he admits does not bring holi?iess though he says it 
 admits to favor! 
 
 In the second place we differ as to what constitutes 
 the human family. He argues that the human family 
 will be brought to holiness and happiness, and con- 
 tends that the spirits only are God's children who 
 will be brought to that state. Then he believes the 
 human family to consist of a family of invisible spirits, 
 the bodies being the houses in which the human 
 family live. He argues that these spirits are immor- 
 tal and have never lost the divine image, and that the 
 
MR. HUGHES EIGHTH SPEECH. 1 57 
 
 bod}^ will never be raised, and yet contends that all 
 will be resurrected to life and immortality ; that is, 
 that which possesses life and immortality will be raised 
 to life and immortality! ! I contend that the body 
 constitutes the essential part of man, that it was 
 c alled man before receiving" the breath of life at all, 
 that human beings are born male and female, and 
 that human beings never would have had any exis- 
 tence if human bodies had not been made. — [Time 
 expired. 
 
 MR HUGHES' EIGHTH SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators and Kespected Auditors : 
 — In this, my closing address on this Proposition, I wish 
 first to note some things in the speech you have just 
 heard, and then pass to a brief recapitulation. 
 . Brother Daily favors you with a poem, as he calls it, 
 which he no doubt thinks quite ornate and classical. It 
 is not in line with my way of debating, but to show him 
 that his doctrine is open to repartee, I will quote a few 
 verses which are a much truer representation of his creed 
 than his poem is of mine. 
 
 ''Praise be the Lord I pardoned am, 
 My spouse, good soul, is pardoned, too ; 
 
 We shall both be saved through Christ the Lamb, 
 In spite of all we can do. 
 
158 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 Our children, six in number all, 
 
 By pious parents sanctified, 
 Are safe in grace, whatever befall, 
 
 For who shall Christ's elect divide ? 
 
 And others, 'tis naught to me, 
 
 Who shall be saved, or who be damned. 
 
 But grace shall still exalted be, 
 
 And saints rejoice tho' hell be crammed." 
 
 He knows that his poem is a misrepresentation of Uni- 
 versalism, and all out of order. Take the case of the 
 Antediluvians. It is a long interval between the flood 
 and Christ's preaching to them, and they still in prison. 
 And he knows the use I made of that case. 
 
 He seems to think it would be an awful thing for those 
 people to have mercy shown them some time in the future 
 state, but a most gracious one for God to thrust them 
 into a never ending hell. He seems to think rather that, 
 
 "The breath of God, his angry breath, 
 
 ►Supplies and fans the fire, 
 Where sinners taste the second death, 
 
 And would, but can't expire." 
 
 That evidently would be more to his taste. And how 
 about those miserable creatures, hated of God before they 
 were born, sent into the world "spiritually bound with 
 chains, shut up in darkness, and in a prison house," hated 
 here and to be hated forever. If God be such a God, 
 there is no need of his Santanic Majesty. No wonder 
 Bunyan said, "I blessed the condition of the dog or 
 toad, because they had no soul to perish under the weight 
 of an everlasting hell." 
 
 I will pass his continuous references to the resurrec- 
 
MR. HUGHES EIGHTH SPEECH. 1 59 
 
 tion of the body to his proposition where they belong. I 
 am not so fond of mixing things as my friend. His 
 fine criticism on the forgiveness of punishment is a mere 
 splitting of hairs. He represented punishment as a debt, 
 and then the debt forgiven. 
 
 On the atonement he says that I believe there is no 
 benefit to man in the death of Christ, and that I do not 
 believe that Christ is in any way a ransom, or a propitia- 
 tion, all of which I brand as false. Who authorized him 
 to tell what T believe? I have said nothing of the kind. 
 I have told him I believe in the atonement as moral in 
 its effects, and the "propitiation through faith in his 
 blood.'' Rom. iii. 25. And it is not to appease the wrath 
 of Clod but to reconcile man. Rom. v. 11; II Cor. v. 18- 
 20. But 1 do say, that so far as the issue between us on 
 this proposition is concerned, it makes no difference 
 which view of the atonement is held, the result is in- 
 evitable if I prove that Christ died for all. And the 
 syllogism brought him to a sense of his situation, hence 
 his great outcry. And that Christ is a propitiation for 
 the sins of the whole world I most abundantly proved. 
 
 In his Pilgrimage of a Stranger, Eld. Daily says, "It 
 is an established law of philology, the correctness of 
 which is universally admitted, that a word must be taken 
 in its literal sense "unless the context imperiously de- 
 mands a different meaning." Page 259. I have taken 
 those texts in their literal meaning as the words in dis- 
 pute, and hold that there is nothing in the context to 
 restrict them. It devolves upon him to show the re- 
 striction. He admits that when the two classes are con- 
 sidered together it means the people apart from the 
 righteous. Well, it is so used in I John ii. 2: "He ts 
 
FIRST PROPOSITION. 160 
 
 the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but 
 for the sins of the whole world." And so this text settles 
 the question as to Christ's death for all men, and also 
 the truth of my proposition. 
 
 His attempt to limit prayer for all men to all classes 
 of men is a desperate one. If you pray for all classes 
 who are you leaving out? But he says, we are not to 
 pray for the sin unto death. But the words are, ""I 
 do not say he shall pray for it." But Jesus prayed for 
 his enemies on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they 
 know not what they do." Praying for his disciples in 
 particular, he does not pray for the world (John xvii. 
 21), but further on he prays for all who shall believe on 
 him through their word, "that the avorld may believe 
 thou hast sent me." John xvii. 21. So Jesus did pray 
 for the world. It is strange that Paul should limit 
 prayer by exhorting prayer for all men! And also 
 strange how "learning" can understand the words "kings 
 and all in authority" to mean all classes, and then base 
 an important construction on it. That sort of a contrac- 
 tion and expansion will be new to scholarship ! 
 
 When God makes promise he uniformy uses universal 
 terms; as, all nations, the world, all men, etc., when, ac- 
 cording to Brother Daily, he only means the elect. Does 
 the Almighty intend to deceive men? But he does de- 
 ceive all but a mere handful if my brother is right ! And 
 should any one in despair inquire, "does any man care 
 for my soul," of one thing he may be sure, God does not 
 care only to make damnation more sure. 
 
 But Rev. v. 13, where all creatures praise God only in 
 metaphor, as all by their very existence praise him and 
 the Lamb, just as the heavens declare his glory. But 
 
MR. HUGHES' EIGHTH SPEECH . l6l 
 
 how about those creatures represented by Esau, for whom 
 God has an unchangeable hatred? Does their "very ex- 
 istence" glorify God ? Evidently my friend does not feel 
 on this subject as Dr. Albert Barnes: "Had man the 
 view the eternal Father had, we would weep that God 
 is laid under the necessity to defile and mar the beauty 
 of the universe with the smoke of an eternal hell." 
 
 But as to the Abrahamic promise, all do not believe, 
 and only those who have faith are blessed with faithful 
 Abraham. True, then; and so far the promise was ful- 
 filled. But has not many more believed since then, and 
 become the children of Abraham, and blessed with him ? 
 and when all nations are blessed in him, will not all be 
 the children of Abraham? We are told that "Abraham 
 believed God." But what did Abraham believe ? He be- 
 lieved the promise, "In thee and thy seed shall all the 
 families of the earth be blessed." And that promise will 
 be fulfilled just as sure as God cannot lie. 
 
 If the translation of the Diaglott is correct: "They 
 having been accounted worthy;" that is, the children of 
 this world, then there is no limitation to the resurrection 
 in this passage. And let my friend pay some attention 
 to the quotation made from Winer's Greek grammar on 
 the phrase "the dead" as a definite multitude. 
 
 The reply you have heard on I. Cor. xv. 20-28, was an 
 effort to restrict the resurrection in this chapter to a 
 part of mankind only, and he relies on the words, "They 
 that are Christ's at his coming.^ There are two senses 
 in which men are Christ's, ownership and discipleship. 
 All were given to Christ, and when all are subdued to 
 Christ, and made alive in him, they are his in a spiritual 
 sense. 
 
1 62 FIRSY PROPOSITION. 
 
 It must be understood there is no other resurrection 
 spoken of here, and that this was the end. There was 
 no judgment here. Christ's reign is ended, and he has 
 delivered up his kingdom to God the Father. It is the 
 consummation, and "God is all in all." There is no hint 
 that there is anything adverse to God or Christ. Death, 
 the last enemy, is destroyed, which cannot be without a 
 universal resurrection. And it is utterly preposterous 
 to speak of any limit here. The clause, "As in Adam all 
 die," my friend must admit means all men; and Paul 
 asserts "Even so in Christ shall all be made alive." It 
 is the same in both cases, and it is only the exigences of 
 a peculiar case that requires anything different. 
 
 I would remind the brother that an apostle may ad- 
 dress a church on a subject which pertains to all hu- 
 manity. I refer to verse 50 quoted by him. "Now this 
 I say, brethren, flesh and blood cannot inherit the king- 
 dom of God." This is a universal truth, and a most un- 
 fortunate reference for his position and scholarship. 
 But further the apostle speaks of the change of the liv- 
 ing, and says, "the dead shall be raised incorruptible." 
 Note the phrase "the dead," and let his learning ex- 
 pose the authority I have given him on that phrase. But 
 again, the apostle speaks of death being swallowed up in 
 victory, verse 54, which could not be a partial resur- 
 rection. 
 
 Beferring to his argument on the sin against the 
 Holy Spirit; there will be a discussion of the word 
 eternal in the next proposition, and I well defer it till 
 then. The phrase, "Neither in this world nor in the 
 world to come," literally translated would be, "Neither 
 in this age nor the coming." So in Mark, "hath not 
 forgiveness for the age." It is also said, "that in the 
 
MR. HUGHES' EIGHTH SPEECH. 1 63 
 
 ages to come God will show the exceeding riches of his 
 grace." Eph. ii. 7. And Paul teaches that "where sin 
 abounded grace did much more abound," ' and there is 
 not even one sin that shall defeat grace or go beyond it. 
 According to the Jewish form of speech it only teaches 
 that all other sins may more easily or readily be for- 
 given than the sin against the Holy Ghost. 
 
 I come now to my recapitulation. My Proposition is 
 as follows: The scriptures teach that all the human 
 family will finally be brought to enjoy a state of endless 
 holiness and happiness. 
 
 My first argument was based on the nature of God. 
 "God is love." I Jno. 4:8. This is the divine nature, 
 and so God from his very nature loves all men. The 
 scriptures teach that he loves them when they do not 
 love him, even when "dead in sin." Ep. 2 :4-5. He 
 cannot hate because he is love. Jesus tells us that "God 
 so loved the world that he sent his Son to be the Savior 
 of the world." Jno. 3 :16, 17. And so clear and em- 
 phatic are his teachings on this point that his disciples 
 said: "We know that this is the Christ the Savior of 
 the world." Jno. 4 :42. The word world is here used in 
 its most natural sense, in all these and related passages, 
 and there is nothing in the context to limit them. 
 
 An attempt was made to turn the force of this argu- 
 ment by quoting, "vengeance belongs to God." But I 
 showed that this only means his right to punish. And 
 the usage of the word I showed in Eom. 13 :4, where the 
 magistrate is said to be "God's minister to thee for good, 
 a revenger to execute wrath on him that doeth evil." 
 
 Again he quoted, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have 
 
164 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 I hated/' claiming that Esau represents the non-elect, 
 whom God hates now, and will hate in all the future, but 
 T showed that this is to be understood nationally and 
 providentially, and relates to their descendants. "Na- 
 tions," and especially the Edomites, are mentioned in 
 their history. Gen. 25 : 3 ; Mai. 1 :3, 4. Esau did not 
 serve Jacob, nor did he ever humble himself to the dust 
 as Jacob did in his guilt before him. The election that 
 Paul speaks of is national. The Jew rejected, the Gen- 
 tile chosen. "They were enemies as concerning the 
 gospel, but as concerning the election "beloved/' Kev. 
 11 :28. There is no eternal reprobation here. 
 
 My second argument was on the universal fatherhood 
 of God. Paul teachers, "To us there is but the one God 
 the Father." "One God and Father of all." Eph. 4:6. 
 And Jesus taught the "multitude and disciples," "One 
 is your Father which is in heaven." Matt, 23 :1, 9. Sin- 
 ners are therefore the children of God, as well as the 
 righteous. . As were the heathen idolaters the offspring 
 of God. Ac. 17 :28, 29. Men are the children of God 
 not by mere creation, but because God created them "in 
 his image," imparting to them the divine nature, and so 
 relating himself to them. "God is spirit," and the 
 "Father of spirits," and so is related to men in their 
 spiritual nature. Jno. 4:24; Heb. 12:9. If they are 
 called the children of the evil one, it relates to character, 
 and not to them as the devil's offspring. This character- 
 istic relationship is referred to when men are com- 
 manded to love their enemies, that they might be the 
 children of their Father in heaven. Matt. 5 :44, 45. 
 
 To this argument and the first it was replied, God is 
 as much the loving Father now as he ever will be, and if 
 
mr. hughes' eighth speech. 165 
 
 there is any virtue in the argument, all ought to be saved 
 now, but the}' are not. But this reply fails because it 
 takes no account of the fact that God works progres- 
 sively in both the natural and spiritual world. Jesus 
 illustrates one by the other. It is "first the blade, then 
 the ear, and after that ripe corn jn the ear." Matt. 4 : 
 26-28. In the moral world God works by means, but his 
 purposes are none the less sure on that account. If my 
 friend is right, creation would have been at a standstill 
 ages ago ! 
 
 My third argument was from Paul's sermon on Mars 
 hill. Ac. 17 :22-31. He affirms that "God made of one 
 all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth," 
 and he is a sovereign over men to the intent "that they 
 should seel- the Lord, if haply they may mid him," as 
 all are his offspring, the whole drift of his sermon being 
 that God has one purpose concerning all men, their 
 salvation. I cannot remember that my brother referred 
 to this. 
 
 My fourth argument was on the purpose of the sub- 
 jection of the world to man, to be consummated in the 
 moral -sense finally through Christ. All things were put 
 in subjection to man in such a universal sense, "that 
 there was nothing not put under him." But though 
 "we see not yet all things put under him, we have full 
 assurance given in Jesus," who tasted death for "every 
 man." And as man the race is the subject here, so it is 
 man universally for whom "Jesus tasted death," and 
 there can be no limit put to that phrase here, and it 
 settles the case in this controversy. 
 
 My fifth argument was drawn from the mission and 
 ministry of Christ, "He came to seek and sa.YQ that 
 
1 66 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 which was lost." Luke 19 :10. To save the chief est of 
 sinners. 1 Tim. 1 :15. And he was given dominion 
 over the "dead and the living," and ability to subdue all 
 things to himself. Phil. 3 :21. So equally extensive was^ 
 his ministry. How else could he fulfil his mission ? He 
 went in spirit after his crucifixion, and preached to 
 spirits in prison, who were aforetime disobedient in the 
 days of Noah. "The gospel was preached to the dead, 
 that they might be judged according to men in the 
 flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Pet. 
 3 :18 — 20, 4:6. The preaching was to spirits by Christ's 
 own spirit, to the dead spoken of in contrast to men in 
 the flesh. But one construction is possible to these 
 passages: the opening of Christ's ministry in the spirit 
 world. The one construction held in the ancient church 
 for four hundred years after Christ. 
 
 My sixth and seventh arguments were from the words 
 of Jesus, "If T be lifted from the earth, T will draw all 
 men unto me." Jno. 12:32. And as "all things were 
 given to Christ," so all thus given should come to him, 
 and not be cast out." Jno. 3 :35, 6 :37. These passages 
 show the final result and triumph of Christ's ministry. 
 
 My eighth argument was from those passages whicli 
 teach the universal reconcilation of the world to God. 
 2 Cor. 5 : 14-19. "God was in Christ reconciling the 
 world unto himself." And "Having made peace by the 
 blood of his cross to reconcile all things to himself, both 
 which are on earth and in heaven." These are universal 
 terms, and I recall no attempted reply from my brother. 
 My ninth argument was on the universal submission 
 of all things to Christ, as taught in Phil. 2:9-11, an- 
 other proof my friend failed to meet, But here we have 
 
 
MR. HUGHES' EIGHTH SPEECH. 167 
 
 the most positive declaration that at, rather "in the 
 name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in 
 heaven, and things in the earth, and things under the 
 earth: and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is 
 Lord to the glory of God the Father." There is no 
 possible limitation here. I re-enforced this passage by 
 the words of the prophet: "I have sworn by myself, 
 the words have gone out of my mouth in righteousness, 
 and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, 
 every tongue shall swear, surely shall say in the Lord 
 have I righteousness and strength." Isa. 45 :23, 24. 
 Paul also quotes these words to show that every one of 
 us shall give an account of himself to God: another 
 irrefutable proof of its universality, and that God's 
 judgments issue in victory, the "righteousness and 
 strength" of all mankind. 
 
 My tenth argument was on the universal righteous- 
 ness taught in Eom. 5 :12, 18, 19. The reign of sin is 
 universal. "All have sinned." The reign of grace is to 
 be equally universal. Kay, rather the reign of grace is 
 to superabound that of sin, and the "free gift is to come 
 upon all men to the justification of life." "And as by 
 one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so 
 by the obedience of one the many shall be made right- 
 ous." Universal righteousness means universal salva- 
 tion. 
 
 My eleventh argument was from Eom. 8 :18-23, the 
 deliverance of the creature, man, into the glorious lib- 
 erty of the children of God. Just so sure as the crea- 
 tine here is maa, just so sure is my proposition true. 
 And the natural meaning of the word is "creation, the 
 thing created," as in Col. 1 :15, Mark 16 :15, It can only- 
 
1 68 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 mean here man the intelligent creation. It can mean 
 Christians only when the word new is applied, making 
 it the "new creation/' and that phrase occurs but twice 
 in the New Testament, and here Christians are spoken 
 of as separate and apart from the groaning creation 
 which is to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the 
 children of God. 
 
 My twelfth argument is on the salvation of both Jew 
 and Gentile, the two great divisions of mankind. Eom. 
 11 :25-36. "Blindness in part is happened unto Israel, 
 until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all 
 Israel shall be saved." "It avails nothing to say that 
 "spiritual Israel" is meant here, when it is manifest 
 that "blinded Israel" is the one expressly mentioned. 
 Further the apostle says, "He hath concluded all (both 
 Jew and Gentile) in unbelief, that he may have mercy 
 upon all." "For of him (by creation) and through him 
 (by sustaining power) and to him (as the final end) 
 are all things. To whom be glory forever." 
 
 My thirteenth argument was on the Abrahamic prom- 
 ise that all nations of the earth should be blessed in 
 Christ. Gen. 12:1-3, 22:15-18; Acts 3:25, 26. The 
 promise is in expressely universal terms. "All nations, 
 families and kindreds of the earth." It includes justifi- 
 cation by faith, turning away from iniquities, and the 
 resurrection from the dead, assuring us that the resur- 
 rection is a blessing, and not an everlasting curse to the 
 larger part of mankind; and so means in its ultimate 
 fulfillment the salvation of all men. 
 
 The fourteenth argument was founded upon Luke 20 : 
 27-38 and parallel passages. Here Christ teaches the 
 "resurrection of the dead/' which I showed by eminent 
 
MR. HUGHES' EIGHTH SPEECH. 1 69 
 
 authorities means "the dead as a definite multitude/' all 
 the dead. And there was no attempt to meet this point. 
 And I showed that it would be a perversion, therefore, 
 of Jesus' words to restrict them to a partial resurrection, 
 since he taught that all "the dead live unto God. Ver. 38. 
 "The children of this world having been accounted wor- 
 thy of the resurrection of the dead, cannot die any more, 
 and are the children of God, being the children of the 
 resurrection." 
 
 My fifteenth and last argument was from the resur- 
 rection and consummation as taught in 1 Cor. 15 :20-28. 
 Here we have those invincible words : "As in Adam all 
 die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." There may 
 be as many orders as these human beings, but "all are 
 to be in Christ, and all are his." They were given to 
 him, he purchased them by his blood, and he has con- 
 quered all their enmity. As the first fruit was a sample 
 of the whole harvest, so Christ is a sample of the harvest 
 of all the dead." "If the first fruit be holy, the lump is 
 also holy." Eom. 11 :16. This is the end. Christ's reign 
 is finished. He has destroyed all enemies. Death, the 
 last enemy, is destroyed. There are no others. Tears 
 are wiped from all faces. All things are subdued unto 
 him, and he becomes subject to God the Father, and 
 God is all in all. 
 
 Thanking you, my friends, for your patient hearing, I 
 leave the issue with you. 
 
 ( Time expired. 
 
I70 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 MR. DAILY'S EIGHTH REPLY. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen, 
 Respected Opponent — You may be in the condition a 
 congregation was to whom a preacher preached three 
 hours. The preacher was speaking to a friend about his 
 long sermon, and was asked: "Didn't it worry you?" 
 "No," said the preacher, "it didn't worry me, but I tell 
 you the congregation was worried." I intend to get 
 through with this speech in just one-half hour, and you 
 know that will not be very long. 
 
 As to the "poems" we has produced, I purpose leaving 
 them with the people to decide which has been the 
 truer representation of our respective doctrines. As to 
 the Antediluvians, if the punishment they suffered here 
 was only continued in the future world as here, they 
 only preferred it to a holy life just as they did here, and 
 so the preaching of Christ to them would have been 
 unavailing if lie had preached to them according to my 
 friend's position. I will not repeat my reply to his 
 absurd position on that point, but will merely remind 
 you that I challenged him to show that Christ continued 
 to go to the place of the lost and preach to them to the 
 end of the world. Even if he could prove that the 
 Antediluvians were preached to between the death and 
 the ascension of Christ, which he could not do if bis 
 eternal destiny were suspended upon it, he could not 
 show that any other class were so favored after the 
 ascension of Christ. He resorted to this to try to prove 
 a moral change after death, and built his argument on a 
 mere assumption, without the shadow of proof. 
 
 He says he will pass my references to the resurrection 
 
MR. DAILY'S EIGHTH REPLY. 171 
 
 of the body to my proposition where they belong. I 
 only referred to that in reply to positions taken by him, 
 and it is well he passed the matter by. You remember 
 he argued that there would be a resurrection to a state 
 of life and immortality. I asked him if the spirit, which 
 he says was created in the image of God and never lost 
 that image, possessing life and immortality already, 
 could be resurrected to a state of immortality ; if im- 
 mortality could be raised to immortality! He claimed 
 that death would be destroyed when the immortal spirit 
 was resurrected to immortality ! I asked him if death 
 would be destroyed if the body which had died is never 
 raised! I asked him if the lifting up of the living would 
 be any destruction of death! I demanded a plain an- 
 swer. He passed it all by! The reason is plain. He 
 says he is not fond of mixing things. He may not be 
 fond of it, but he has things so mixed here that he will 
 never extricate himself from the mixture! He may pass 
 it by till the next proposition, but he will be in the same 
 hole there! He will never get out of it! 
 
 He denies saying there is no ransom in the death of 
 Christ and that it is of no benefit to man. He brands 
 me as a falsifier, claiming I charged him with taking 
 that position and affirming that Christ's death was no 
 propitiation. I challenged him to show how Christ's 
 death could be a ransom or propitiation for sin, if it 
 does not save sinners from punishment, from sinning, 
 from death, from hell, or from anything else! If all 
 sins are punished in the sinners who commit them, and 
 sinners are not saved from anything, I want to know in 
 what sense the death of Christ can be considered as a 
 ransom or propitiation! I have demanded that he tell 
 
172 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 how the death of Christ can be moral in its effects and 
 commend the love of God to man when that death was 
 entirely useless! I have wanted to know how his death 
 reconciles sinners to God when they are punishel for all 
 their sins just as much as they ought to be, and satisfac- 
 tion is rendered for their sins by that punishment alone! 
 He has failed, utterly failed to show that there was any 
 atonement made by the death of Christ. He has not met 
 these points, because he could not meet them. I am 
 laying no blame upon him for this failure, for he has 
 done the best he could, and doubtless he has made a 
 stronger fight than any other Universalist could have 
 made. 
 
 He claims that two classes are considered together in 
 the text, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not 
 for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." I 
 have answered his position on that, and only wish to say 
 here that he again supposes I am right about the atone- 
 ment and he is wrong to give any force to his argument. 
 This he is compelled to do or he would not do it. When 
 Christ said, "that the world may believe that thou hast 
 sent me," he assumes that he means all the people in the 
 world, all the human race. As to that, the world might 
 be made to believe that God had sent him, and yet not 
 have that faith which works by love. That is no proof 
 that Christ prayed for the whole world or all mankind. 
 He said, "I pray not for the world." He only prayed 
 for those who believed in him then, and for all that 
 should believe in him. I have challenged my friend to 
 show that all universally would finally believe in Christ. 
 This he has failed to do. 
 
 He made no attempt to reply to my argument that 
 
MR. DAILY'S EIGHTH REPLY. 1 73 
 
 none mentioned in Eev. v. said anything about being re- 
 deemed except the ones who sang the new song. The 
 fact that these were redeemed out of every kindred, 
 tongue, people and nation proves to a demonstration 
 that all of these classes were not redeemed. To this 
 point he has not replied. It stands against the doctrine 
 of his proposition. 
 
 The restriction of the promise to Abraham was so 
 plain that my friend touched that matter very lightly. 
 He says the promise will be fulfilled to all because all 
 will believe in Christ. This is assuming the very point 
 to be proved. I showed that "the children of the prom- 
 ise are counted for the seed," and that "the children of 
 the flesh are not the children of God." To this he has 
 attempted no reply, and so it stands as a complete 
 refutation of his argument on the iibrahamic promise. 
 
 As to the clause, "They which shall be accounted 
 worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from 
 the dead," he knows the language is restrictive, and so 
 he seeks to make it appear universal by giving the ren- 
 dering of the Emphatic Diaglott, "But those having 
 been accounted worthy." The participial phrase is but 
 another form of the expanded clause given in King 
 James' translation, and is equally restrictive. Winer's 
 rendering the phrase "hoi nekroi" as a definite multi- 
 tude does not make it universal for the word definite 
 means bounded by certain limits, limited, determinate. 
 He makes some light of "scholarship," but his scholar- 
 ship is sufficient to enable him to see the force of this. 
 
 "They that are Christ's at his coming" is restrictive 
 and he knows it. So he attempts to dodge by saying 
 that there are two senses in which men are Christ's, 
 
174 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 ownership and discipleship. But he argues that this is 
 at a time when Christ's reign will he entirely ended. 
 Then all mentioned will then be his, both by ownership 
 and discipleship. As it is still restricted, we conclude 
 that the number mentioned as being Christ's is re- 
 stricted both as to ownership and discipleship. Then 
 all will not be Christ's at his coming, either in the sense 
 of ownership or discipleship. 
 
 After saying there would be a discussion of the word 
 eternal in the next proposition, and that he would there- 
 fore defer noticing the "sin against the Holy Ghost" 
 till then, he goes on to notice it. He says the phrase 
 "Neither in this world nor in the world to come," liter- 
 ally translated, would be, "Neither in this age nor the 
 age coming." I suppose by the age coming is meant 
 the age after death, so it amounts to the same. He 
 says it only teaches that all other sins may be more easily 
 or readily forgiven than the sin against the Holy Ghost. 
 The fact is, and he knows it, this teaches that this par- 
 ticular sin will never be forgiven, either in this world 
 or age, or the world or age to come. God will "show 
 the exceeding riches of his grace'' to "the vessels of 
 mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory," but the 
 sin against the Holy Ghost he will never forgive. So 
 those who have committed that sin will never be brought 
 to enjoy a state of endless holiness and happiness. 
 
 I will now continue the review of the arguments 
 which I began in my former speech. We differ in re- 
 gard to what constitutes us children of God. He argued 
 in the beginning that creation of our spirits in the 
 "image of God" made us all the children of God. Then 
 when pressed somewhat on that point, he said that ere- 
 
Mr. daily's eighth reply. i 75 
 
 ation alone did not make us his children. I then asked 
 him what more was done to make us children than cre- 
 ation : what was done in addition to creation to make 
 us the children of God. That question he passed by in 
 silence, as I expected him to do. 
 
 AVe differ in regard to what satisfies for sin. He 
 claims our being punished ourselves for our sins renders 
 satisfaction. I have shown that Christ was "made to be 
 sin for us," that he "bore our sins in his own body on 
 the cross/ 7 that he "put away our sins by the sacrifice 
 of himself," and that it is "by his stripes we are healed."* 
 All this has been set aside by my opponent as utterly 
 useless, and he has placed the responsibility on the 
 sinner to render satisfaction for his own sins by punish- 
 ment inflicted on him. This renders it necessary for 
 every sinner to make his own atonement for his sins, and 
 sets aside the atonement of Christ as being altogether 
 unnecessary. 
 
 We agree that the spirits of the unjust enter the 
 future world in an unjustified state. He claims that 
 they will become just at some period before the resur- 
 rection by repentance and faith, but I proved there 
 would be a resurrection of the unjust as well as the just, 
 which shows they will not be made just by repentance 
 and faith at any period before the resurrection. 
 
 He has argued that the spirits will be raised to life 
 and immortality, at the same time claiming that all our 
 spirits are the children of God, created in his image, 
 possessing life and immortality. I have asked him how 
 death could be swallowed up in victory if that which 
 dies is never brought to life. I have asked him how 
 immortality could ever be raised to immortality. He 
 
1 76 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 has failed to meet these points. He will have an oppor- 
 tunity in the discussion of the next proposition to meet 
 them. But he will fail then as now. 
 
 He admitted that the Universal ist church did not 
 exist as an organized body prior to the days of John 
 Murray, so my argument stands that if Christ and his 
 apostles taught Universalism the church was a Univer- 
 salist church in their day. Whether called by that name 
 or not, it was a TJniversalist church as an organized 
 body if that doctrine be true. But as it did not exist in 
 that day as an organized body, it follows that the doc- 
 trine of this proposition is false. 
 
 I showed that only those who become servants of God 
 in this life and have . their fruit unto holiness are 
 brought to enjoy in the end everlasting life. I proved 
 this by Bom. vi. 22. My opponent passed this by in 
 silence. His position is that all will enjoy that blessed 
 state in the end whether they bear the fruit of holiness 
 here or not. 
 
 I proved that no one would ever see or enter into the 
 kingdom of God without being born again. I showed 
 that God begets, which constitutes him the Father of 
 those who are begotten of him. Those who are not born 
 of God and die in that state cannot see the kingdom of 
 God or enter into it. He claimed that being born again 
 makes us God's children characteristically, but not in 
 relationship. Then he was unable to tell what was 
 needed in addition to creation to make us children of 
 God, at the same time claiming that creation alone 
 does not. 
 
 He said I was "splitting hairs" in making my crit- 
 icism on his repeated reference to the "forgiveness of 
 
 
MR. DAILY S EIGHTH REPLY. 1 77 
 
 punishment." He made no effort to clear up his blunder 
 in such misapplication of the term forgiveness. In his 
 floundering under that criticism he said I. had "repre- 
 sented punishment as a debt, and then the debt for- 
 given." This mistake is a result of his confusion, I 
 never so represented punishment. I represented sin as a 
 debt, and the debt forgiven, and offered an argument on 
 that which remains unanswered to this hour.,; Jesus 
 pays the debt and forgives the sinner, but in. the system 
 of my friend there is no place for forgiveness of sins, 
 because every sinner has to pay the full debt himselfv ; So 
 Christ does nothing in the, world for him. v 
 
 By Matt. x. 29, and Luke xii. 4, 5, I proved that both 
 soul and body of some would suffer in hell after the 
 death of the body. In this the Saviour sanctioned and 
 confirmed the opinion of the Jews that the soul and body 
 would be cast into hell after the death of the body. That 
 being true, he taught that some would not be brought to 
 enjoy an endless state of holiness and happiness. , 
 
 I argued that those who die in their sins cannot go 
 where Christ went after death. The application of ..my 
 opponent of the same language used in the address to 
 the disciples was shown to be erroneous from the fact 
 that it was not said they should die in their sins, and 
 it was not said to the unbelieving Jews that they should 
 come to him afterward. To this no answer has been at- 
 tempted. 
 
 I have shown that sinners are not punished in this 
 life in proportion to their sins, either in their. bodies or 
 their conscience. Some of the greatest sinners suffer 
 less than many righteous ones in their bodies, and the 
 farther one goes in sin the less punishment he feels in 
 
I78 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 his hardened conscience. To this argument my friend 
 has paid no attention. It is a death blow to his theory 
 of punishment. 
 
 I gave five absurd conclusions drawn from his position 
 on the circumstance of the rich man and Lazarus. I 
 proved by that circumstance that Jesus taught in plain 
 language what the Jews already believed in regard to 
 future punishment. Instead of correcting their opinion, 
 which he would have done had it been false, he confirmed 
 and illustrated that very doctrine in a familiar way. 
 This proves that all will not be finally brought to enjoy 
 a state of holiness and happiness. 
 
 I proved that some are known as the children of God 
 by him, while others are not thus known, and that this 
 same distinction will exist at the last day, when the great 
 separation shall take place. To some he will say, "I 
 never knew you." Of his people it is said, 'The founda- 
 tion of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord 
 knoweth them that are his.'" As he always knows them 
 that are his, and as he never knew some, it follows that 
 some are not his and never will be. On the love of God 
 my friend argued that God loves all exactly alike, but 
 has utterly failed to reconcile the plain statement of 
 God's with that view, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau 
 have I hated." I showed that this illustrates the doc- 
 trine of election, the children of the promise being count- 
 ed for the seed, and not the children of the flesh, or those 
 born of the flesh only, for they are not the children of 
 God. This proves the representation to be of individuals 
 and not nations. Those represented by Jacob include all 
 the "poor in spirit," all that "hunger and thirst after 
 righteousness," all that "mourn" on account of sin. 
 
MR. DAILY'S KIGHTH REPLY. 179 
 
 While God never knew those as his children who live in 
 the love and practice of sin and die in that state, yet he 
 has always known those whom I have described as his 
 children. He has loved them with an everlasting love, 
 while he has hated those represented by Esau, and with 
 his loving kindness he draws them. Thus the. founda- 
 tion of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord 
 knoweth them that are his. We can well sing, "How firm 
 a foundation," for the foundation stands upon the never 
 ending and changeless knowledge of God, who knows 
 them that are his. (Time expired.) 
 
SECOND PROPOSITION : 
 
 THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THERE WILL BE A RESURREC- 
 TION IN A SPIRITUAL STATE OF THE NATURAL BODIES OF ALL 
 THE DEAD OF THE ADAMIC RACE, A PART OF WHOM WILL SUFFER 
 ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 
 
 ME, DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audience and 
 Worthy Opponent: We have reasons this morning to 
 be grateful to God that we are permitted to meet for the 
 purpose of continuing our investigation of his holy word. 
 I feel to be especially grateful that it is my privilege to 
 appear before you to introduce my arguments in sup- 
 port of the proposition you have just heard read. I am 
 sure that I am sincerely desirous to know what is the real 
 truth relative to this important question. If what is 
 stated by the terms of this proposition is true, we all 
 ought to believe it ; if what is thus stated is untrue, none 
 of us ought to believe it. Be assured that 
 
 "Truth crushed to earth shall rise again ; 
 
 The eternal years of God are hers ; 
 But error,, smitten, writhes in pain. 
 
 And dies amid her worshipers." 
 It becomes my duty to define the terms of my proposi- 
 tion, that there may be no misunderstanding respecting 
 it. The proposition reads : The Scriptures teach that 
 
MR. daily's first speech. i8i 
 
 there will be a resurrection in a spiritual state of the 
 natural bo.dies of all the dead of the Adamic race, part 
 of whom will suffer endless punishment. By the term 
 "Scriptures" I mean the sacred canon, the books com- 
 posing the Old and New Testaments, forming the vol- 
 ume which we call the Bible, the word Bible signifying 
 "'the book." While I may make reference to other works 
 in the course of this investigation, by way oi argument, 
 I shall have regard only to the teaching of the sacred 
 word of God for proof of the positions I take. It is my 
 purpose not to base my arguments on assumptions, not 
 to undertake to support my arguments by presuming 
 that the Bible teaches thus and so, but to bring forward 
 proof, irrefutable proof found in its sacred pages. By 
 the term "Resurrection," I mean there will be a raising 
 to life of that which is dead; a returning to life of that 
 which had faUen in death. By the term, "in a spiritual 
 state," T merely mean that the body, when raised, will 
 not be material as it had been before the resurrection, 
 but that it will be immaterial. By the term spiritual I 
 do not mean a holy or divine nature, but simply an im- 
 material state. Such a change will be made in the spe- 
 cial resurrection of the saints that they will be made holy 
 and divine in their nature, but as the general resurrec- 
 tion of natural bodies and the endless punishment of the 
 wicked are the points involved in this discussion, I shall 
 confine myself to the general resurrection of the natural 
 b< dies into an immaterial state. By the term, "natural 
 bodies/' I mean the material bodies; the body that was 
 created of the dust of the earth and called the first man 
 Adam. By the term, "all the dead of the Adamic race," 
 I mean all those who shall have died before the end of 
 
1 82 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 the world comes. By the term, "endless punishment," I 
 mean they will endure a punishment that will continue 
 forever or without end. As to the degree or nature of 
 that punishment I shall have nothing to say, as that is 
 not a part of my proposition. The issue between Mr. 
 Hughes and me, on this part of my proposition, is, 
 whether or not any will suffer endless punishment. That 
 some will is what I am to affirm and what he is to deny. 
 He is also to deny that the bodies of any will ever be 
 raised. 
 
 In thus plainly defining the terms of my proposition 
 I take my stand upon it as my support. In the first 
 place, as an introduction to my regular line of argument 
 on this question, I propose to show that the real man 
 was created of the dust of the earth and is of the earth 
 earthy, and that the spirit was created and given to the 
 man as his spirit — that the spirit thus given him is the 
 spirit of the man. 
 
 Job xxxii. 8: "There is a spirit in man, and the inspira- 
 tion of the Almighty giveth them understanding." 
 
 This teaches that man has a spirit within him. It 
 makes a distinction between the spirit of man and the 
 man, the spirit of man being in him. It does not say 
 there is a man in the body, as Brother Hughes seems to 
 believe, that the spirit is the man possessing the body, 
 but that the body is the man in which the spirit of the 
 man dwells. 
 
 Prov. xviii. 14: "The spirit of a man will sustain his in- 
 firmity." 
 
 In this text that which is affected by the infirmity is 
 the man considered apart from his spirit, a distinction 
 being made between the man and his spirit. "The 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 183 
 
 spirit of a man will sustain his/' the man's, "infirmi- 
 ties." 
 
 Isaiah xxvi. 9: "With my soul have I desired thee in the 
 night: yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early." 
 
 In reading I have emphasized the important points 
 in the language of the person speaking, that I may make, 
 the thought emphatic and impress it upon your minds 
 that the person talking speaks of the soul that he has 
 and of the spirit that is within him, he being the person 
 that is speaking of his soul and his spirit. 
 
 I Cor. ii. 11: "For what man knoweth the things of a 
 man save the spirit of man which is in him." 
 
 Now, who is the man ? Is it the spirit ? Not accord- 
 ing to that text. Instead of the spirit being the man, it 
 is the spirit of the man. 
 
 Eccle. iii. 21: "Who knoweth the spirit of the man that 
 goeth upward and the spirit of the beast that goeth down- 
 ward to the earth?" 
 
 In speaking of the beast, do we mean to be understood 
 as speaking of the spirit of the beast? If so, none of us 
 have ever seen a beast. We have a 1 ! seen beasts, but none 
 of us ever saw the spirit of a beast. So when we speak 
 of a beast we mean that which is visible. When we speak 
 of the spirit of the beast we do not mean the beast itself. 
 So when speaking of the man we speak of that which is 
 visible, and in speaking of the spirit of the man we mean 
 that which the man has that is invisible, and not the man 
 himself. , 
 
 In I Kings xvii. 19-22, we have the account of the 
 prophet Elijah raising the widow's son from the dead. 
 The widow's son had died, and in dying his spirit went 
 out of his body and his body was dead. The widow was 
 grief -stricken and the sympathy of Elijah was aroused, 
 
1 8 4 ' SECOND PR OPOSITION . 
 
 Doubtless the power of God's omnipotent Spirit came 
 upon. him, and he requested her to give him her son, not 
 his spirit, but the son himself . The child that was lying 
 in a state of death, that child was the widow's son. The 
 son was. given over to Elijah and he took him, her son, 
 out of her bosom and carried him into a loft, where he 
 abode,, and laid him upon his own bed. "And he cried 
 unto the Lord, and said, Lord my God, hast thou also 
 brought evil upon this widow with whom I sojourn, by 
 slaying her son?, And he stretched himself upon the 
 child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, 
 Lord, my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into 
 him. again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah ; 
 and the soul of the child came into him again, and he 
 revived." That which is here called the child, the 
 widow's son, is the body. Instead of the spirit being the 
 child and that which was dead merely his body, the body 
 was the" child' whose spirit went out of him and came 
 into him again. 
 
 I might give many passages in addition to these in 
 positive proof' that human beings are visible beings who 
 possess human spirits, but I shall let these suffice. I have 
 proved unanswerably my position on the issue introduced 
 by my opponent in the very beginning of the discussion 
 of the first proposition in regard to what constitutes the 
 real human family. According to the proof I have ad- 
 vanced, in beholding this audience I see visible members 
 of the human family. I perceive that there are sitting 
 in these seats human beings, members of the human 
 family, whom I see with these eyes of mine. Nowhere, 
 in all the word of God, is the spirit considered the hu- 
 man being separate and apart from the body. 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 1 85 
 
 Having proved this point relative to an introduction 
 to my regular line of arguments, I now pass to a second 
 point to be considered, which is that man is a created be- 
 ing; that God created him of the dust of the ground; 
 that lie was the first man Adam ; and that no being- 
 known as man had an existence before him. I intend to 
 prove that even God's children were included in this cre- 
 ation, and were made of the dust ; that the human family - 
 consist alone of this creation, being of the earth earthy; 
 that to this earthy man was given the law, that he trans- 
 gressed it. and died as a result of his transgression ; and 
 that the entire posterity of Adam was involved in sin 
 and death by his transgression, as a result of which they 
 all die;. 
 
 1. Man is a created being, created by God of the dust 
 of the earth, there being no personage known as man- 
 that had an existence before him. 
 
 Gen. i. 26, 27: "And God said, Let us make man in our 
 own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion 
 over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air^ and 
 over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creep- 
 ing thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created, 
 man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; 
 male and female created he them." 
 
 Did the- inspired writer represent God as saying, Let. 
 us make the spirit of man in our own image to dwell in- 
 his body? The language will admit of no such interpre- 
 tation. It is declared that in creating them in his image 
 he created. them male and female.. It is, therefore, : the 
 visible beings, distinguished by sex, that were created -in 
 the image of God, and not simply the invisible spirits 
 that were given them. This image was of a moral nature 
 which distinguished man from the brute creation, in 
 which nature man was pronounced good, and very good. 
 
1 86 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 Gen. ii. 7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust 
 of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of 
 life; and man became a living soul." 
 
 The Lord God formed man male and female, under- 
 stand, not spirits in which there is no distinction of sex, 
 but male and female, of the dust of the ground. The 
 man thus formed was man before the breath of life was 
 breathed into him. Man did not exist when God said, 
 Let us make man. He did not exist until he was formed 
 out of the dust of the ground. 
 
 Gen. v. 1, 2: "This is the book of the generations of 
 Adam. In the day that God created him, in the likeness of 
 God made he him; male and female created he them; and 
 blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when 
 they were created." 
 
 That reference is had here to the body created of the 
 dust there can be no question. Mere spirits cannot be 
 referred to, for the record says their name was called 
 Adam in the day when they were created male and fe- 
 male. 
 
 I Cor. xv. 45-47: "And so it is written, The first man 
 Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a 
 quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spir- 
 itual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which 
 is spiritual. The first man was of the earth earthy; the 
 second man is the Lord from heaven." 
 
 There could have been no man before the first man; 
 so there was no man before the man created of the dust 
 of the ground. That is what the record says, and by the 
 record we must stand. 
 
 2. Even those represented in the Bible as the chil- 
 dren of God were originally created of the dust of the 
 
 ground. 
 
 Job xxxiii. 4, 5, 6: "The Spirit of God hath made me, 
 and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. If thou 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 1 87 
 
 canst answer me, set, thy words in order before me, stand 
 up. Behold, I am according to thy wish in God's stead; I 
 also am formed out of the clay." 
 
 Job x. 8, 9: "Thine hands have made me, and fashioned 
 me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me. Re- 
 member, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay ; 
 and wilt thou bring me into dust again?" 
 
 Isaiah lxiv. 8, 9: "But now, O Lord, thou art our Father: 
 we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we are all the 
 work of thy hand. Be not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither 
 remember iniquity forever: behold, see, we beseech thee, we 
 are all thy people." 
 
 These passages prove that the children of God were 
 formed in the original creation of the dust of the ground. 
 They are not, therefore, a mere family of spirits, but a 
 family of flesh and blood, a family of visible beings. 
 
 3. This Adam family, formed of the dust of the 
 ground, constitutes the only beings that inhabit and en- 
 joy the blessings of this earth. 
 
 Acts xvii. 24, 25, 26: "God that made the world, and all 
 things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, 
 dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is wor- 
 shiped with men's hands, as though he needed anything, 
 seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and 
 hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on 
 all the face of the earth; and hath determined the times 
 before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." 
 
 As these were made of one blood, they were fleshly be- 
 ings and not spirits. 
 
 4. It is to this earthy man that the law has been 
 given, who, having transgressed the law, dies as a result 
 
 of his transgression. 
 
 Psalm ciii. 14, 15, 16: "For he knoweth our frame; he 
 remembereth that we are dust. As for man, his days are as 
 grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the 
 wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof 
 shall know it no more." 
 
1 88 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 Job xxi. 32, 33 : "Yet shall he be brought to the grave, 
 and shall remain in the tomb. The clods of the valley shall 
 be sweet unto him, and every man shall draw after him, as 
 there are innumerable before him." 
 
 Job xiv. 10: "But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man 
 giveth up the ghost, and where is he?" 
 
 Who is spoken of here? , Who is it that gives up the 
 ghost and dies? It is the man, the being that God made 
 of the dust. 
 
 Eccle. i. 3, 4: "What profit hath a man of all his labour 
 which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth 
 away, and another generation cometh ; but the earth abideth 
 forever." 
 
 The generations spoken of here are beings that live 
 here, beings who know, and act. and breathe, who, hav- 
 ing received life from God, live and move as physical 
 bodies in the enjoyment of the providential blessings of 
 God. 
 
 5. The earthy Adam involved his own posterity in sin 
 and death, as a result of which they all die. 
 
 Rom. v. 12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into 
 the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all 
 men, for 'that all have sinned." 
 
 I shall ii6w proceed to the discussion of the docti me of 
 the resurrection. A definition of the term will first claim 
 our attention. The word "resurrrection*' is translated 
 most generally from the Greek word, anastasis, which 
 signifies a resurrection from death, raised to life again. 
 See Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Parkhurst de- 
 fines it as a rising or resurrection of a dead bo<b- to life. 
 In Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, it is de- 
 fined a making to stand or rise up, awakening, a resur- 
 rection (for example, of the dead), a setting up again, 
 rebuilding; in the Xew Testament, resurrection. 
 Grove's Greek Lexicon: Ainastasi, from Anistemi — to 
 
MR. DAISY'S FIRST SPEECH. 1 89 
 
 stand, rise, rise up again. Besurrection to life implies a 
 pre-existing state of death, and that the very thing. that 
 is raised had been in a state of death. In the death of 
 the body there is a separation of the spirit from the body. 
 
 Eccle. xii. 6, 7: ''Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the 
 golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the foun- 
 tain, or the wheel be broken at the cistern. Then shall the 
 dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall re- 
 turn to God who gave it." 
 
 In this separation of the. spirit from the body, the 
 spirit does not die, but the body does. :;: 
 
 James ii. 26: "For the body without the spirit is dead." 
 
 In explaining the nature of the resurrection Paul says. 
 "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened ex- 
 cept it die." It is clearly taught in this passage that 
 death is absolutely necessary to the resurrection, and 
 that no creature can be resurrected except it first die, and 
 that the thing that is thus quickened or raised is the very 
 thing that had died. . . 
 
 Syllogism: 
 
 I. In the resurrection, the thing that had died is 
 quickened. 
 
 II. In the separation of the spirits from the natural 
 bodies at death it is the natural bodies that die. 
 
 III. Therefore, the natural bodies are quickened or 
 raised in the resurrection. 
 
 These two premises cannot be overthrown, so the con- 
 clusion will stand. As the resurrection of the dead is the 
 resurrection of that which has died, and as it is the body 
 that has died, it follows that if T prove a resurrection of 
 the dead I will prove a resurrection of the natural body. 
 
 Argument I. I base my first direct argument on the 
 resurrection of Christ. The Bible abundantly teaches 
 
190 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 that Christ arose from the dead, which is termed his 
 resurrection." 
 
 Omitting the witnesses mentioned, I quote the lan- 
 guage of the apostle in the following passage to show the 
 nature of the resurrection of Christ and of the dead in 
 general: 
 
 I Cor. xv. 3-22 : "For I delivered unto you first of all that 
 which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins ac- 
 cording to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that 
 he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 
 * * * Therefore Whether it were I or they, so we preach, 
 and so ye believed." 
 
 In speaking of the resurrection of Christ, the apostle 
 teaches that it was the body that died and was buried, 
 that rose again, and this he calls the resurrection of 
 Christ. Is it not plain to all, is it not a settled fact in 
 the minds of all, is it not an unavoidable conclusion that 
 it was the body of Christ that was raised from the sepul- 
 chre ? I ask my Universal ist friends this morning, I ask 
 you to answer this seriously before God, does this not 
 have reference to the resurrection of the body of Christ ? 
 Does it not strike your minds as a fact that Paul, in 
 speaking of the resurrection of the dead here, refers to 
 the resurrection of the literal, actual body of Christ, the 
 very body that was laid in the sepulchre ? 
 
 Verses 12-16; "Now if Christ be preached that he rose 
 from the dead, how say some among you that there is no 
 resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of 
 the dead, then is Christ not risen, then is our preaching 
 vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found 
 false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God 
 that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up if so be 
 that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not 
 Christ raised." 
 
 In saying, "If the dead rise not, then is not Christ 
 
MR. DAISY'S FIRST SPEECH. 19I 
 
 raised/' he teaches that the dead rise if Christ is raised. 
 By Christ heing raised, he means the natural body of 
 Christ that had been buried in the sepulchre. Then the 
 rising of the dead means the rising of their natural 
 
 bodies. 
 
 Verses 17-20: "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is 
 vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are 
 fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we 
 have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But 
 now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first 
 fruits of them that slept." 
 
 What is it that would perish if the dead did not rise? 
 Xot the spirit, for it is imperishable, my brother. It is 
 the body that would perish forever if the dead did not 
 rise. To the visitors who came with spices to anoint the 
 body of Christ very early in the morning, the angels said, 
 "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not 
 here, but is risen." What had been in the sepulchre was 
 not there, but was risen. That was the body of Christ. 
 
 I argue from this that the apostle is here proving and 
 demonstrating the resurrection of the dead. In proving 
 and demonstrating that the dead rise, he proves the res- 
 urrection of Christ. He argues that it was the very 
 Christ that died, and was buried, that rose from the 
 dead. That which died and was buried was the natural 
 body of Christ, the body that was fleshly, composed of 
 flesh and bones. 
 
 Luke xxiv. 39: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is 
 I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and 
 bones as ye see me have." 
 
 This proves that in the resurrection of Christ it was 
 not his spirit, but his body, that was raised, and that 
 body he speaks of as being he himself. This is very em- 
 phatic. Paul uses this fact as a demonstration of the 
 
1 92 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 resurrection of the dead. If my opponent denies this lie 
 will render himself ridiculous before this intelligent au- 
 dience. As the resurrection of Christ is a demonstration 
 of the resurrection of the dead, it follows as an unavoid- 
 able conclusion that in the resurrection of the dead the 
 bodies, the natural bodies, will be raised. If in the res- 
 urrection of the dead a spiritual body will be formed en- 
 tirely-separate and apart from the natural body, Paul de- 
 ceived us in using the resurrection of Christ as a demon- 
 stration of the resurrection of the dead. If I were to 
 close my discussion of this part of my proposition here, 
 and rest it entirely upon this one argument, I would he 
 successful in establishing beyond all successful disputa- 
 tion and beyond the shadow of a doubt the resurrection 
 of the natural bodies of the dea.d. 
 
 Argument II. My second argument in defense of my 
 proposition is that Paul, in the midst of a council com- 
 posed of Sadducees and Pharisees, declared himself to 
 be with the Pharisees on the doctrine of the resurrection. 
 
 Acts xxiii. 6-9: "But when Paul perceived that one part 
 were Sadducees and the other part Pharisees, he cried out 
 in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son 
 of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I 
 am called in question. And. when he had so. said, there 
 arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Saddu- 
 cees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees 
 say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: 
 but the Pharisees confess both. And there arose a great 
 cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, 
 and strove, saying We find no evil in this man: but if a 
 spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight 
 against God." 
 
 The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body. 
 Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, says : "Bishop Hall, 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 193 
 
 in his Harmonia Apostolica, has clearly proved that they 
 held a resurrection of the body." Jones, in his Church 
 History, says : "The Pharisees admitted the immortal- 
 ity of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and a future 
 state of rewards and punishments." Vol. I, page 44. 
 
 Paul declared himself to be a Pharisee and the son of 
 a Pharisee, and said that he was called in question of the 
 hope and resurrection of the dead. This produced a dis- 
 sension between the Sadducees and Pharisees, because 
 they were divided on that question. If both sects had 
 believed what Paul said about the resurrection, there 
 would have been no dissension. The Pharisees said they 
 found no fault in him, which is conclusive proof that 
 they agreed with him on the resurrection. They under- 
 stood what Paul believed and agreed with him. This is 
 positive proof that Paul believed in the resurrection of 
 the body. I agree with Paul, and stand with the Phari- 
 sees on that point. As my opponent differs from me and 
 denies the resurrection of the body, I must place him 
 with the Sadducees, who were against Paul on that ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Argoiext III. My third argument is that God has 
 promised to ransom from the power of the grave those 
 who are in it, and to redeem them from death, at which 
 time death is to be swallowed up in victory. 
 
 Hosea xiii. 14: "I will ransom them from the power of 
 the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will 
 be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction." 
 
 I might not be able to give a true application and in- 
 terpretation of this passage had not the apostle explained 
 it for me and correctly applied it. 
 
 I Cor. xv. 54, 55: "So when this corruption shall have 
 put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on im- 
 
194 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 mortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is 
 written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where 
 is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" 
 
 The prophecy of Hosea has not yet been fulfilled, for 
 the dead have not yet been ransomed from the grave, and 
 the corruptible and mortal have not yet put on incorrup- 
 tion and immortality. The grave holds the body. It 
 holds the body in a state of corruption. The power of 
 the grave will be destroyed when the bodies are raised 
 from the grave and from a state of death. If the bodies 
 are never raised from the dead and from the grave, death 
 will never be destroyed and the grave will never be con- 
 quered. 
 
 Argument IV. My fourth argument is that the in- 
 spired writers of the Old Testament directly and posi- 
 tively taught the doctrine of the resurrection. 
 
 Isaiah xxvi. 19: "Thy dead men shall live, together with 
 my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that 
 dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the 
 earth shall cast out the dead." 
 
 The prophet here teaches that the dead shall live, aris- 
 ing with the dead body of Christ. Respecting those who 
 dwell in the dust, he declares that the eartli shall cast 
 out her dead. 
 
 Dan. xii. 2: "And many of them that sleep in the dust of 
 the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to 
 shame and everlasting contempt." 
 
 "In the dust" is sometimes used figuratively, and so 
 is "of the earth/' but when these "two phrases are com- 
 bined they are not used in a figurative sense, for the kind 
 of dust is specified. "Many" in this text is used in the 
 sense of multitude. It is from the Hebrew word rob, 
 which is translated multitude in Psalms xcvii. : "Let 
 the multitude of the isles be glad," meaning all the isles. 
 
MR. DAILY S FIRST SPEECH. 1 95 
 
 The Greek word polus is used in the same sense in Rom. 
 v. 19 : "For by one man's disobedience many were made 
 sinners." 
 
 Psalm xvii. 15: "As for me, I will behold thy face in 
 righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy 
 likeness." 
 
 In this David agrees with Paul in Phillip, iii. 21: 
 "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fash- 
 ioned like unto his glorious body." It was thus the hope 
 of David that he would awake in the likeness of Christ 
 and be satisfied. 
 
 Job xix. 23-26: "Oh, that my words were now written! 
 Oh, that they were printed in a book! That they were 
 graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock forever! For 
 I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at 
 the latter day upon the earth: and though, after my skin, 
 worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." 
 
 Job expected to see the Redeemer in his flesh after the 
 destruction of his body. This he can never realize un- 
 less his body is resurrected. Job spoke by the inspiration 
 of God. This is not a vain dream of an imaginative 
 mind, but the plain word of God. To dispute it is to 
 dispute what God revealed to that patient, suffering ser- 
 vant of his. 
 
 I have not time now for another argument. I shall 
 not begin one, as I have not time to finish it, but I want 
 to say in the time that yet remains that I would be per- 
 fectly willing to rest my case here and stand upon the 
 arguments I have advanced in support of my proposi- 
 tion. I have proved the resurrection of Christ's body 
 and demonstrated by that the resurrection of the dead. 
 This is conclusive proof that the resurrection of the dead 
 is the resurrection of the bodies that died. I stand with 
 Paul on the question of the resurrection, who agreed 
 
196 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 with the Pharisees on that point. Mr. Hughes denies it, 
 and stands with the Sadducees. The Old Testament 
 saints believed in it, which was the goal of their expecta- 
 tions. I have no fears that my brother will succeed in 
 overthrowing my arguments by producing arguments 011 
 the negative of this proposition. I am constrained to 
 believe, my friends, that you who disbelieve in the resur- 
 rection of the body are somewhat shaken in your faith. I 
 am constrained to believe that those who believe in the 
 resurrection of the body are confirmed in their faith and 
 feel stronger in it. The hope of the Christian is vain 
 without this. Praise God, then, for the hope of the res- 
 urrection. (Time expired.) 
 
 ME. HUGHES' FIRST REPLY. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 I am very glad indeed to see my brother start out with 
 so much confidence this morning. But I fear his confi- 
 dence is going to be shaken, for 1 apprehend not the least 
 difficulty in showing the utter fallacy of his proposition. 
 Its first part, "There will be a resurrection in a spiritual 
 state of the natural bodies of all the dead of the Ad am it- 
 race," he defines to mean a universal resurrection of the 
 natural bodies in an immaterial state. That is, the nat- 
 ural bodies of all men will be raised spiritual, or imma- 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIRST REPLY. 1 97 
 
 terial, bodies. They are not natural bodies after they are 
 raised. Christ's body was not a natural body after his 
 resurrection. No man's body will be a natural body 
 after his resurrection. Consequently, Christ's natural. 
 body was never seen by mortal man after the sealing of 
 Joseph's new tomb. Whenever he appeared to his dis- 
 eiples it was in his spiritual body. Let this be remem- 
 bered, as the result of my friend's proposition as defined 
 by himself. 
 
 The first proposition, as proposed to me, was to the 
 effect that there would be a resurrection of the natural 
 body, and then a change to a spiritual body — a distinct 
 improvement over the present form. Brother Brush will 
 remember that. But that did not suit Brother Daily, 
 and he proposed it as it now reads, and, of course, I 
 readily accepted it. 
 
 The second part of the proposition reads : "a part of 
 whom will suffer endless punishment." If they suffer 
 endless punishment it will be either in body or spirit, or 
 both. And I now ask my brother how an immaterial 
 body can suffer punishment? Can they be beaten with 
 stripes or burned with fire? Or how can a soul totally 
 depraved suffer moral or spiritual punishment? A little 
 light here, if you please. 
 
 My friend could not keep out of the question of the 
 resurrection of the body, but was dipping into it all the 
 way through the first proposition, and he was continu- 
 ally advertising about what he was going to do, and now, 
 the time having come, I hope he will try and make good 
 to the best of his ability. 
 
 He has labored hard and long in telling you what man 
 of the "Adamic race" is; and this is the result: The, 
 
I98 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 body created of the dust of the earth "is the real man." 
 And the spirit was something created separate and apart 
 from man and given to the man. Brit he failed to tell us 
 what the spirit. is. He did not intimate that the spirit is 
 the conscious, intelligent part of man. In fact, he comes 
 very near being a materialist, as he makes the spirit no 
 part of man, as he was man before he was given the 
 spirit. 
 
 The Scriptures he quotes, and argues so strenuously, 
 are not exact scientific or philosophical statements of 
 what man is as to body and soul. Otherwise there are 
 contradictions in the word. "It is the spirit that quick- 
 eneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." Jno. vi. 63. Pro- 
 nouns are applied to the body as well as spirit, indicating 
 ownership. And I would call particular attention to 
 Paul's statement that "it is the spirit that knoweth the 
 things of man." I Cor. ii. 11. The man may be "absent 
 from the body." II Cor. v. 8. Paul kept "his body un- 
 der." I Cor. ix. 27. And he exhorts men to present 
 their "bodies a living sacrifice." Rom. xii. 1. What 
 does it avail my friend to try to show that the "real man" 
 is material in proof that the natural body will be raised 
 spiritual? Why not the real man be natural over there 
 as well as here ? His logic runs in this wise : "Man is 
 material now; therefore he will be immaterial in the res- 
 urrrection ! !" He did not learn that from Aristotle. 
 
 It was the "visible beings," the bodies, he informs us, 
 that were created in the divine image. And then goes 
 on to inform us that this bodily image was of a "moral 
 nature." I would like to know how the material can be 
 moral. As my friend is "teacher," will he condescend to 
 explain? remembering "that man was man before the 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIRST REPLY. I99 
 
 spirit was given him." 
 
 "God is spirit/' and his image must be spiritual and 
 not material. Dr. Adam Clarke says of the soul : "This 
 was made in the image and likeness of God. He can 
 have no corporeal image after which he made the body 
 of man.'' Commentary on Gen. i. 27. 
 
 Man here is both soul and body. I believe as well as 
 he does that man here has a material body ; and I believe 
 also that man will have a body in the resurrection state. 
 But 1 do not believe that man's material body will be 
 raised into the future state. There is where the issue 
 lies between him and me, and I wish you to remember it. 
 
 Now, in reference to the phrase "the dead." He tells 
 you it is the dead that are to be raised ; that it is the nat- 
 ural bodies that are to be raised. And so, according to 
 him, it is "dead bodies in the graves" that is meant by 
 the term, "the dead." This I deny most emphatically, 
 and therefore deny that it is the body of flesh and blood 
 that is to be raised. Come with me, if you please, to the 
 Xew Testament, which has more to do with a clear un- 
 derstanding of this subject than the Old Testament, and 
 to St. Paul, who has treated more largely the resurrec- 
 tion than any other writer in all the Bible. In II Cor. 
 iv. 16 the apostle speaks of an "outward man" and an 
 "inward man," b} r which he refers to the soul and the 
 body. Xow which of these two is the real man and the 
 subject of the resurrection? The apostle tells us that the 
 "outward man perishes," and he knows nothing more of 
 the outward man. It perishes, but the "inward man is 
 renewed day by day." Mr. Daily is continually speaking 
 of the natural man and of the things which he sees; hej 
 sees before him men ! His fault is he is looking on the 
 
200 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 tilings seen. But Paul "did not look on the things which 
 are seen, for the}' are temporal; but the things unseen 
 are eternal." II Cor. iv. 18. So the apostle defines man. 
 It is the inward man which is the real, eternal man, that 
 rises in the resurrection. The body belongs here; it is 
 temporal and perishes. Which are you looking at, my 
 friends? Again, Paul says, "For we know if our earthly 
 house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a build- 
 ing of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in 
 the heavens." II Cor. v. 1. No doubt he means by "the 
 earthly house" the natural body, which is "dissolved." 
 By "the building of Clod," the resurrection body, which 
 is eternal in the heavens. And it is the "inward man" 
 that is first joined to the temporal body, and then has 
 the heavenly house or body. It is not the body here that 
 "oivns the soul" ; it is "our earthly house. " 
 
 But the apostle goes on to say, "For in this we groan, 
 earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house 
 which is from heaven. If so be that being clothed we 
 shall not be found naked.'" Here the resurrection imme- 
 diately succeeds death. And so he believed that the res- 
 urrection body is from heaven, and not from the grave. 
 And he did not anticipate a long interval in which lie 
 would be a naked, houseless spirit. He shrinks back 
 from that with dread as an undesirable state. But ac- 
 cording to my friend's doctrine, ever since Paul was be- 
 headed at Eome he has been a naked spirit ! Further he 
 testifies that when in the natural body, "he was absent 
 from the Lord." But when absent from the body he ex- 
 pected to be "present with the Lord." Now, where is 
 Christ ? Undoubtedly in the resurrection state ; and 
 there is no way to be where he is but by like resurrec- 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIRST REPLY. 201 
 
 tion. Paul is now with Christ, so he has been raised 
 from the dead, and has been clothed upon with his house 
 which is from heaven: and the resurrection is not of the 
 natural body. What need has he of his body of flesh, 
 when he has now a spiritual body ? 
 
 Now we come to his argument based upon the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ — that his natural body was raised. The 
 writers of the New Testament do not so decide. Mark 
 says, "He appeared in another form to two of them." 
 Mark xvi. 12. Then he did not always appear in the 
 same form, and it was not his natural body. He walked 
 to Emmaus with two of his disciples and they did not 
 know him until he w-as revealed to them by the breaking 
 of bread. Luke xxiv. 13-31. That could not have been 
 his natural body which "vanished out of their sight." 
 He appeared first to Mary Magdalene and she did not 
 know him. Why not, if it was his natural body? He 
 appeared to those who were in the upper room, when the 
 door was shut. Can a material body pass through a key- 
 hole ? Hardly. I think. Besides, according to Mr. 
 Daily's own position, he did not appear in his natural 
 body. And for the life of me, I cannot see how one can 
 prove the resurrection of the natural body by the mani- 
 festations of a spiritual body! 
 
 When Paul makes his argument for the resurrection of 
 all men from the resurrection of Christ, he says, when 
 correctly translated, and I quote the Eevised Version : 
 "Whom he raised not up, if so be the dead are not raised, 
 for if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been 
 raised." I Cor. xv. 15, 16. The same tense applies to 
 the dead and their resurrection as to Christ and his res- 
 urrection. And just so surely as Christ is raised from 
 
202 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 the dead, so are the dead raised, not will be, but are 
 raised, agreeing with the words of Jesus: "Now that 
 the dead are raised, Moses showed at the bush." Luke 
 xx. 37. And his own testimony in II Cor. v. 1 : "For 
 we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were 
 dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made 
 with hands, eternal in the heavens." The one body fol- 
 lows and is consequent upon the other. It is not a future 
 resurrection thousands of years hence, but a present, pass- 
 ing, progressive resurrection, not of material bodies, but 
 of spiritual bodies, so refuting my brother's argument on 
 the resurrection of Christ. 
 
 But the apostle goes on to answer the question, "How 
 are the dead raised up, and with what body do they 
 come?" I Cor. xv. 35. Now, if Paul had made so very 
 clear the resurrection of the natural body in the former 
 part of this chapter, that Brother Daily is willing to risk 
 his whole argument on what the apostle had then said, 
 why could any man ask about the kind of body in the 
 resurrection ? when they had already been told it was the 
 resurrection of the flesh ! ! Did Paul propound these 
 questions when he had already answered them ? You see, 
 my friend is mistaken, and all his loud assertions go for 
 naught. The apostle did not have the question of the 
 resurrection body before him till now; and now he an- 
 swers : "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quick- 
 ened except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou 
 sowest not that body which shall be." Verses 36, 37. 
 There is no resurrection without a death preceding it. 
 The grain sown does not spring up except it first dies. 
 That is a fact well understood. After the body of the 
 grain dies, then the living germ springs up and forms a 
 
 
MR. HUGHES FIRST REPLY. 203 
 
 new body. The grain sown is not the one that springs 
 up, and so by analogy the natural body is not the resur- 
 rection body. "Thou sow est not that body which shall 
 be/' But the question, "with what body do they come ?" 
 should be, if my friend is right, "How are the dead bodies 
 raised up, and with what body do the dead bodies come?" 
 This makes nonsense of the apostle's teaching and refutes 
 Mr. Daily's inference from it. 
 
 Next we have some authorities on the Greek word an- 
 astasis rendered resurrection. And I will give you some 
 authorities also on that word, some recent writers as well 
 as lexicons. Creamer, in his New Testament Lexicon, 
 defines the word, "Anastasis, rising up after a fall;" 
 Greenfield, "a rising up; resurrection." Young, in his 
 Analytical Concordance, "a standing or rising up." 
 Bishop Newton defines the word, "Anastasis, the word 
 constantly used throughout the New Testament for res- 
 urrection, signifies a rising again, a life after death, an- 
 other state of the same person, but never once, that I 
 know of, signifies, or even implies, a resurrection of the 
 same body." Milton S. Terry, D. D., Professor of Chris- 
 tian Doctrine in Garrett Biblical Institute, Methodist, 
 says : "The Greek word . . . anastasis means a 
 rising up, and implies some manner of exaltation of the 
 dead. They rise or stand up again in some new form 
 and power." "According to Jesus, the resurrection of 
 the dead is no restoration of fleshly bodies, but an ex- 
 altation and glorification of the living spirit of man." 
 Biblical Dogmatics, pp. 220, 227. Dr. William Adams 
 Brown, Ph. D., D. D., New York Theological Seminary, 
 in his Outlines of Christian Theology, p. 253, says: 
 "This new conception of life after death is accompanied 
 
204 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 by a corresponding modification of the idea of the resur- 
 rection. Instead of involving the restoration of the indi- 
 vidual to the conditions of this present physical exist- 
 ence, it is thought of as the means by which he is fur- 
 nished with an organization adequate to the needs of the 
 higher spiritual world A striking example of such is 
 Paul's doctrine in I Cor. 15: There the body which is 
 raised is not this present body of flesh and blood, but a 
 different body — "as different as the plant is from the 
 seed from which it springs." 
 
 You see I am in excellent company, and have the best 
 authorities on this question. When the body falls as in 
 death, the inward man stands again, and rises in the new 
 spiritual body. 
 
 I pass on again to ask my friend to prove, if it is pos- 
 sible for him to prove, that the phrase "the dead" in a 
 single instance in all the Xew Testament means dead 
 bodies in the graves. For it is the resurrection of the 
 dead that is spoken of, and if as he says that it is "the 
 thing that dies,'* that is to be raised,, he must show that 
 that phrase means dead bodies in their graves. This T 
 deny, and here the controversy turns, and failing here, 
 he loses his argument. The dead are dead to us. Rut 
 they are alive to God: and I understand by "Mho dead" 
 those who have passed out of. this state of existence into 
 the future. But it never means their dead bodies. In 
 Jesus' reply to the Saddueees he tells them that God is 
 the God of Abraham. Isaac, and Jacob: and that he is 
 not a God of the dead, but of the living, "for all live 
 unto him." Luke xx. 38. So those ancient worthies 
 were then living by virtue of a resurrection, not of their 
 natural bodies, most certainly, but in such sense that 
 
MR. HUGHES* FIRST REPLY. 205 
 
 Christ could say, "Now that the dead are raised, even 
 Moses showed at the bush, when lie calleth the Lord the 
 God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob." Now, 
 when Jesus says, "In the resurrection they neither marry 
 nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God 
 in heaven/' he did not mean to say in the coming up out 
 of the grave* they neither marry nor are given in mar- 
 riage, but in the resurrection state, where they are like 
 the angels. So Jesus in his reply to the Sadducees speaks 
 of the resurrection state or life, and not of resurrection, 
 of dead bodies from the graves. 
 
 Xow, suppose we look at this question in the light of 
 reason for a few moments. Physiology teaches that the 
 body is continually wasting away, and is continually be- 
 ing renewed as to the matter composing it. That in 
 about seven years there will be an entire change in the 
 substance composing the body. So that one having lived 
 to the age your humble servant has would have had an 
 entire change in the matter of his body a number of 
 times. Xow, if the natural body is to be raised, I would 
 prefer the one I had in my young and vigorous man- 
 hood. Why not? It was much preferable to the one I 
 have at present. And I do not think my brother be- 
 lieves for a moment that two bodies can occupy the same 
 *paee at the same time, or that something can exist and 
 not exist at the same time. That is impossible in the 
 nature of things as God has constituted them. Xow, 
 what becomes of the body? It goes back to dust as it 
 was. It returns to its original elements, and they per- 
 form service again in the great realm of matter. The 
 bodies of men have been eaten by other men, by animals, 
 and the fishes of the sea. They have fallen bv thousands 
 
206 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 upon great battle fields, as a> Waterloo. Their flesh and 
 blood has enriched the soil where great fields of grain 
 have grown, a part of their bodies going into the grain, 
 which has been eaten by other men and going to form a 
 part of their bodies. So, if the natural body is to be 
 raised, how is each person to have the matter belonging 
 to his body when there will be so many others claiming 
 the same matter which composed it? Will my friend 
 answer ? 
 
 I come now to the quotation from Job : "For I know 
 that my redeemer liveth, and that he will stand at the 
 latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin 
 worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." 
 Job xix. 25, 26. I noticed my friend failed to refer to 
 the marginal translation of that text, which reads : "Yet 
 out of my flesh shall I see God." That puts an entirely 
 different face upon the text, and proves my doctrine, and 
 not his. Job did not expect to see God in his flesh after 
 the death of his body, but out of his flesh. And if, as 
 my brother believes, his body was raised spiritually, how 
 could he see God in his flesh? The American Revised 
 Version translates that passage: "then without m,y flesh 
 shall I see God." So I claim Job to be on my side of 
 this question. 
 
 Next we have Hosea xviii. 14. I will ransom them 
 from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from 
 death. death, I will be thy plagues; grave, T will 
 be thy destruction." I trust my brother is not entirely 
 ignorant of the terms of the Bible. And so I say to 
 him the word Sheol there rendered grave does not mean 
 the literal grave, and he ought to know it. The Revised 
 Version never renders it grave, but always leaves it in 
 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIRST REPLY. 207 
 
 its original form, Sheol. Its Greek equivalent is Hades, 
 which never means the literal grave. And so this text 
 in Hosea refers to the resurrection from Sheo 1 or Hades, 
 and not from the grave, and is against my friend's doc- 
 trine rather than for it. It takes some little time to 
 learn these things, and I trust my brother knows some 
 of them. If not, he has no business here in this discus- 
 sion. 
 
 My friend's next proof is from Dan. xii. 1, 2 : "And 
 many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall 
 awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and 
 everlasting contempt." The phrase "many of them" 
 limits this resurrection. It does not mean all mankind, 
 nor does it mean the same as "the many," as in Rom. v. 
 19, where the definite article the points out "the many" 
 as a definite mass or multitude. Again, it is limited to 
 a special time now past. "And at that time shall 
 Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for 
 the children of thy people : and there shall be a time of 
 trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even 
 to that same time : and at that time shall thy people be 
 delivered, every one that shall be found written in the 
 book." It was at this "time of trouble" that this awak- 
 ening was to be. Just before the prophet had been 
 speaking of the troublous times caused by the oppression 
 of the Israelites by Antiochus Epiphanes. His people 
 were in perilous times, and he was trying to comfort 
 and strengthen them. Xow, there are but two instances 
 in which times of trouble are spoken of like this in the 
 Bible: here and in Matt. xxiv. 15-21. Speaking of the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, our Savior says : "There shall 
 be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning 
 
^08 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 of the world to this time; no., nor ever shall be." This 
 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in the 
 year 70, and there never was to be again such a time of 
 trouble ; it must have been before Christ came, and could 
 not be a general resurrection, as my friend applies it, at 
 the end of the world. But was in those days of trouble, 
 when they hid themselves in the dens and caves of the 
 earth, from which some of them came forth and to shine 
 as the stars, and others, to shame and contempt. 
 
 Then there is the resurrection in the 36th chapter of 
 Isaiah. Mr. Daily violates the law of logic in his reason- 
 ing here. The law is, that you must have no more in 
 your conclusion than in your premises. This in Isaiah 
 has no more than a partial resurrection at best, and he 
 is laboring to prove from it a resurrection of the natural 
 bodies of all the dead, which he cannot do logically. 
 Strange that he who has had so much to say about my 
 scholarship should be so short-sighted, in another part 
 of the chapter it is said : "0 Lord God, other lords be- 
 side thee have had dominion over us; but by thee only 
 will we make mention of thy name. They are dead ; they 
 shall not live; they are deceased; they shall not rise, 
 therefore. Thou hast visited and destroyed them, nnd 
 made all their memory to perish." Yerses 13, 14. It is 
 no more than a poetical description of the destruction 
 of Israel's enemies, and of a restoration of the nation. 
 
 I call attention back to I for. xv. 4-2-44, to the word 
 sown. "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual 
 body." The figure of sown grain is used, because it was 
 familiar to them, and they could readily understand it. ~ 
 When men sow grain, do they sow dead or living grain ? 
 Evidently living grain. I ask you, is tbe sowing of liv- 
 
MR. HUGHES FIRST REPLY. 209 
 
 ing grain analogous to the planting of a dead' body in a 
 grave? The sowing is before the death of the grain, the ' 
 burial of the body after its death. Man is sown when in 
 this mortal state. His is sown a living body> and' except 
 he dies there will be no resurrection. The living grain 
 dies in order to the spi inging up of a new plant. WTieh 
 man dies, then his spirit rises into the new life; and he 
 is "clothed upon with his house from heaven." "Thou 
 sowest not that body which shall be." No one can read 
 these words of St. Paul and believe that when dead 
 bodies are buried in the grave they are being sown for a 
 future resurrection — that is, if they have any conception 
 of the meaning of words. 
 
 On the belief of ■ the Pharisees in resurrection of the 
 body: It is by no means certain that they had a con- 
 sistent faith in it. Dr. Adam Clarke says : "The Phari- 
 sees believed in a confused way in the resurrection, 
 though they received the Pythagorian doctrine of the 
 metampsychosi's or transmigration of souls." Com. Matt, 
 xvi, 1. "They say," testifies Josephus, "that all souls 
 are incorruptible, but that the souls of good, men only 
 are removed into other bodies." Wars, Book II, ch. 8,. 
 sec. 14. Mr. Daily's quotation is not a fair one from 
 Buck's Theological Dictionary. For it goes on. to say, 
 "and that they supposed a certain bone to remain. uncor- 
 rupted, to furnish the matter of which the resurrection: 
 body was to be formed. They did not, however, believe 
 that all mankind were to be raised from the dead. A 
 resurrection was the privilege of the children of Abra- 
 ham alone, who were all to rise on Mount Zion: their 
 uncorruptible bones, wherever they might be buried, be- 
 ing carried to that mountain below the surface of the 
 
 ■..• .. 
 
 ': -if. 
 
2t6 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 earth." Now, I suppose St. Paul could say he was a 
 Pharisee, and that he believed in the resurrection of the 
 dead, and not commit himself to a partial resurrection 
 of the body, and all that nonsense of the Pharisees. No 
 wonder there were Sadducees in those days ! 
 
 My friend says a number of times that the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ's natural body demonstrates the resurrec- 
 tion of the natural bodies of the dead. I take it he means 
 the natural bodies of all the dead. For that is his Prop- 
 osition; the very point he is trying to prove. That being 
 true, then I Cor. 15th ch. teaches a universal resurrec- 
 tion. Mr. Daily himself being judge. It follows also 
 that Christ is a sample (first fruits) of this general res- 
 urrection. And at least all bodies of men are to be 
 "made alive in Christ," in "incorrupt! on, power, and 
 glory," with "spiritual bodies," in the "heavenly image." 
 And we would all like to know how he an escape uni- 
 versal salvation. At least so far as the bodies of all men 
 are concerned; and you are to forever remember how 
 desperately he clings to the notion that the body is the 
 real man. 
 
 His syllogism : 
 
 I. In the resurrection the thing that died is quick- 
 ened. 
 
 II. In the separation of the spirits from the natural 
 bodies at death, it is the natural bodies that die. 
 
 III. Therefore, the natural bodies are quickened or 
 raised in the resurrection. 
 
 The fallacy is in the first premise. It is the man as 
 now constituted that dies. In death the body "per- 
 ishes," is "dissolved." The inward man rises and is 
 clothed upon with the house from heaven, which is the 
 resurrection. The conclusion is therefore an absurd itv. 
 
MR. HUGHES FIRST REPLY. 211 
 
 "Thow so west not that body which shall be." 
 
 I ask my brother to show clearly what lie means by the 
 phrase "the dead." Does it ever mean "dead bodies in 
 the graves"? 
 
 And if the dead are raised in spiritual, that is. in im- 
 material bodies, how are they to be punished in any ma- 
 terial way ? And if the spirits of the wicked are wholly 
 depraved, and have no conscience against sin, and if sin 
 is their natural atmosphere, and they aijoy it, how, then, 
 can they be punished spiritually ? Will not hell be their 
 heaven? 
 
 What becomes of the body after death ? Does God watch 
 over its particles and preserve them for a future resur- 
 rection? The wise man says "the body returns to dust 
 as it was." Paul says "it perishes." "The spirit returns 
 to God who gave it." Does it return to God naked, and 
 remain naked through the ages till the. time of the res- 
 urrection? St. Paul "was earnestly desiring to -be 
 clothed upon with his house from heaven." Has his de- 
 sire never been gratified? If we shall all be unclothed, 
 will we be naked and bodiless in the spirit world until 
 the time of resurrection ? I answer no ; but we shall be 
 clothed upon, and mortality swallowed up of life. Presi- 
 dent Parker, of the great University of Chicago, said, 
 just before his death: "'1 am going before my work is 
 finished. I do not know where I am going, but I hope 
 my work is going on. I expect to continue my work in 
 the future state, for this is only a small part of the 
 glorious whole." He must have believed he would have 
 a body in the future state, and not be a naked, spirit. 
 The sainted Frances Will aid began the wording of her 
 will : "Tis is my last will and testament, after fifty-six 
 years of my Heavenly Father's discipline and blessing to 
 
212 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 prepare me for better work hereafter (as I believe) in 
 wonderful worlds unknown." She did not think for a 
 moment that she was going into the spirit world with 
 her worn-out natural body,. but in a spiritual body fitted 
 for that higher duty to which she felt she was called in 
 wonderful worlds unknown. 
 (Time expired.) 
 
 MR. DAILY'S SECOND SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audience, 
 Worthy Opponent — Brother Hughes spoke of my start- 
 ing out with confidence, and predicted it would be 
 shaken. He will have to make a stronger effort than he 
 did in his speech if my confidence is in the least shaken. 
 I think, however, that it is as strong an effort as he could 
 make, and it is my opinion that he is as strong a man as 
 the Universalists could select. Whatever failures he 
 makes on his side of the question will not be because of 
 any lack of ability on his part, but on account of the 
 weakness of the cause be tries to sustain. 
 
 He asks how an immaterial body can suffer punish- 
 ment. I reply that such a body can suffer punishment 
 just as an immaterial spirit can, and he has argued that 
 the spirits of those who are unjust go into a state of 
 punishment in the future world. He has never told us 
 that people are punished in their bodies or their conr 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 213 
 
 science in proportion to their sins, though I pressed him 
 over and over to tell us. I denied they did in this life, 
 and demonstrated my denial, and he passed it by in 
 silence. He says I could not keep out of the question of 
 the resurrection of the body in discussing the first propo- 
 sition. I went into it because he did. I was determined 
 to follow him, no matter where he went. I showed the 
 fallacy of his position that the immortal spirit, that has 
 always had life, being created in the image of God and 
 never having lost that image, would be raised to life and 
 immortality. I showed the absurdity of saying that 
 mortality should ever be "swallowed up of life," when the 
 only mortal part of man would never be brought to live. 
 I exploded his theory that death should be destroyed, 
 while, according to his opinion, the only part of man 
 that dies when the spirit separates from it is forever held 
 by the grasp of death. To all this he paid no attention, 
 and now I am not surprised that he complains that I did 
 not keep out of the resurrection and let his pet theory 
 alone. I do not wonder that he complains. 
 
 He says the scriptures I quoted to show what man is as 
 to body and soul are not exact scientific or philosophical 
 statements. They are scriptural statements, and we only 
 have his word as to their not being scientific or philo- 
 sophical. In the text quoted by him, "It is the spirit 
 that quickeneth," reference is had to the spirit of God, 
 and not man's spirit. In showing that man was created 
 of the dust, and was called man before" the breath of life 
 was given him, I was not offering that as proof of the 
 resurrection, but only as an introduction to my line of 
 arguments. My opponent will not attempt a reply to my 
 position on the passages quoted. He seems to deny that 
 
214 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 man was man before he received life. Will he explain 
 the passages I used to prove he was ? 
 
 He says man here is both soul and body, and then says 
 he does not believe the body will be raised into the future 
 state. Then he believes only part of the man will be so 
 raised. He says it is my position that it is dead bodies 
 in the grave that is meant by the term "the dead," and 
 he emphatically denies that. This is my position : When 
 the spirit separates from the body at death, it is the 
 body that dies, and not the spirit. Does he deny that? 
 Then I argue that if there is a resurrection of the dead 
 it must be a resurrection of the thing that dies. Does he 
 deny that ? But he says man is composed of an outward 
 man and an inward man, and asks which of these is the 
 real man. He said man was composed of both soul and 
 body. So, according to his statement, it takes both to 
 make the "real man." If it does not, let him explain 
 what he meant by saying man here is both soul and 
 body. He says the apostle tells us that the outward man 
 perishes, and that he knows nothing more of the outward 
 man. He does know more about it, for he says, "It is 
 sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.' He 
 seems to think that Paul never looked upon visible hu- 
 man beings, because he said he looked not at the things 
 which are seen ! A confused debater is liable to say al- 
 most anything. 
 
 He says it is the inward man that rises in the resur- 
 rection. I ask him, does that part of man rise from 
 death? At death, is it the inward man that dies? I de- 
 mand an answer to these questions. I assert that it is 
 the body that dies at death, and if I prove a resurrection 
 of the dead I prove a resurrection of the body. Let him 
 
MR. DAILY'S SECOND SPEECH. 215 
 
 come to this issue and take a stand. If he says it is the 
 inward man that dies, I demand proof. If he^says it is 
 the body that dies, he tells the truth and gives us up the 
 question. If he says nothing about it, he admits his de- 
 feat by his silence. 
 
 The building of God, eternal in the heavens, is the 
 glorified state. Then mortality is to be finally "swal- 
 lowed up of life." II Cor. v. 4. What part of man is 
 mortality ; his body or his spirit ? I demand an answer. 
 If he says spirit, I demand the proof. If he says tody, 
 he yields the point and admits that the body will be 
 swallowed up of life. He says the resurrection b(3dy is 
 from heaven. But he defines anastasis as a "rising up 
 after a fall," "a standing, or rising up," etc, How can 
 it be a rising up if it comes down from heaven ? 
 
 1 was surprised to hear him deny the resurrection ol 
 Christ's body, and yet I knew he had to do that to hold 
 up his side of this question. Instead of noticing my 
 argument on that, and the proofs I offered, he reasoned 
 that his resurrected body could not be in its natural state 
 horn certain facts. I did not say it was in its natural 
 state. His whole argument on that was an effort to show 
 that Christ's body was not raised. People do not have to 
 be hired to tell the truth, but it is usually necessary to 
 hire them to tell falsehoods. A body of soldiers were 
 paid large money to say that the disciples came by night 
 and stole him away while they slept. How do we know 
 but that Brother Hughes is in company with that body 
 of soldiers? The angel said to the visitors at the sepul- 
 chre, "Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: 
 he is risen ; he is not here : behold the place where they 
 Jaid him." What was risen? What was not there? It 
 
2l6 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 was the body, that had been laid there, that was not there, 
 that was risen. When men deny such plain teaching as 
 that, it is unmistakable evidence of the weakness of the 
 cause they are trying to bolster up. How very ridiculous 
 it makes my opponent appear before this intelligent audi- 
 ence !. He says the term "the dead" never means the dead 
 in the grave. Paul, in giving us what he had received, 
 says, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I 
 also received, how that Christ died for our sins according 
 to the scriptures; and that he was buried ,and that he 
 rose again the third day according to the scriptures." 
 . Christ died, was buried, and rose again. That which was 
 buried rose again. Then in drawing an argument from 
 that resurrection, he says, "If Christ be preached that he 
 rose from the dead, how say some among you that there 
 is no resurrection of the dead ?" "The dead" here means 
 the dead in the grave. There is where Christ lay dead, 
 and so there is where those lie who are to be resurrected 
 from the dead. Again he says, "But now is Christ risen 
 from the dead," meaning from his state in the grave. 
 The fact of the resurrection of Christ's body being estab- 
 lished, the fact is established that the resurrection of the 
 dead means the resurrection of bodies. 
 ■ ; . He makes a play upon the tense of the verbs in the 
 statement "the dead are raised." This is but the his- 
 torical present, used to state a general fact as to the 
 resurrection. It simply means that Christ's body being 
 raised establishes the fact of the resurrection. 
 
 In regard to Job's statement, "In my flesh I shall see 
 God," he gives the marginal reading, "Yet out of my 
 flesh," and the revised version, "Then without my flesh." 
 These expression only go to show that he expected to look 
 
MR. DAILY'S SECOND SPEECH. 21 7 
 
 out from his flesh and see his Redeemer, and he even 
 mentions his eyes as beholding him. 
 
 He says sheol does not mean literal grave in the text, 
 "I willransom them from the power of the grave; I will 
 redeem them from death." Well, let it mean simply the 
 state of the dead; it is the body that is dead, and so the 
 case is still in my favor; it establishes the resurrection 
 of the dead bodies. In the fulfillment of it as shown by 
 Paul,, death is to be swallowed up in victory, which can 
 never be if the dead bodies are never raised. He says it 
 takes some little time to learn what he believes, and he 
 trusts I know some of his doctrine, saying if I do not I 
 have no business here in this discussion. I think he has 
 found out I know something of his doctrine, and I am 
 sure he is convinced I have some business here. 
 
 He says that "Many that sleep in the dust of the 
 earth*' is a restricted clause. I had expected him to say 
 that, and so I made the point that the Hebrew word rab, 
 from which "many'" is translated, signifies the full num- 
 ber or multitude, as in the passage, "The Lord reigneth ; 
 let the earth rejoice ; let the multitude of the isles be glad 
 thereof." "Multitude" is from the same Word rab. "The 
 dust of the earth" is not figurative, because it tells the 
 kind of dust. Mr. Hughes assumes that the time is when 
 Jerusalem was destroyed. There is not the shadow of 
 proof for this. 
 
 Argument V. My fifth argument is that Martha 
 stated her belief in the resurrection of the body to Christ, 
 who sanctioned it by his teaching and demonstrated it by 
 raising Lazarus from the dead. 
 
 John xi. 23, 24: "Jesus saith unto her, thy brother shall 
 rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall 
 rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 
 
21 8 SKCOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 Martha referred to the body being raised, for the spirit 
 had taken its flight already to God who gave it. She de- 
 clared her belief in a resurrection at the last day, and her 
 firm conviction that the body of Lazarus would rise at 
 that time. The statement of Jesus to which she replied 
 asserted that the body — the natural body — should rise 
 again. This is beyond dispute. If Martha had been in 
 error in believing the body of her brother would rise at 
 the general resurrection, Christ won Id have corrected her. 
 His teaching and act of raising the natural body of Laz- 
 arus was proof to a demonstration that Martha was right 
 in her faith. The body of Lazarns was raised, and this 
 was a resurrection of the dead. 
 
 Argument YI. My sixth argument is that Christ not 
 only gave assent to this doctrine of the resurrection, but 
 plainly taught it. Luke xx. 27-38. Observe that* the 
 men mentioned in this example by the Saddm-ees were 
 all dead corporeally. They were mentioned as having 
 been "accounted worthy to obtain that world and the 
 resurrection of the dead." So they had already attained 
 to all the resurrection claimed by my opponent. T want 
 his attention to this. Christ designated a class who had 
 thus died as being worthy to obtain that world and the 
 resurrection from the dead, indicating that the resurrec- 
 tion under consideration was yet future, and so could not 
 possibly be anything but the resurrection of the body. 
 The restriction made by the clause, "They which shall be 
 accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrec- 
 tion from the dead," shows most conclusively that there is 
 a class who shall not be accounted worthy to obtain that 
 world and this special resurrection. Anastaseos tes eh 
 nekron is "that resurrection out of dead ones." This is 
 
. MR. DAILY'S SECOND SPEECH. 2ig 
 
 a special resurrection to be enjoyed by those who shall be 
 accounted worthy to obtain it, and will be, in order of 
 time, before the resurrection of the unjust. So Paul 
 says, "The dead in Christ shall rise first." Reference is 
 made to this resurrection of the just in Luke xiv. 13, 11: 
 
 "But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, 
 the lame, the blind: and thou shalt he blessed; for they 
 cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at 
 the resurrection of the just." 
 
 That this is not the resurrection of all is plainly taught 
 by Paul, who spoke of the "resurrection of the dead, both 
 of the just and unjust." Keep in mind the resurrection 
 of Christ's body in reading of the resurrection of the 
 dead, for that is a demonstration of it. Then there will 
 be a resurrection of the just and unjust. The just are 
 those who are in Christ, who shall rise first. This special 
 resurrection of the just is declared in John vi. 54 : 
 "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath 
 eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.'' 
 Those who eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ 
 have eternal life, so their spirits have already been raised 
 from death to life. They shall enjoy another resurrec- 
 tion at the last day. • 
 
 This resurrection is a resurrection of the man himself, 
 as is declared by Jesus. 
 
 John vi. 44: "No man can come to me, except the Father 
 which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at 
 the last day?" 
 
 The resurrection of all, embracing the two classes, is 
 taught in this language of Christ : 
 
 John v. 28, 29: "Marvel not at this: for the hour is com- 
 ing in the which all that are in their graves shall hear his 
 voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto 
 the resurrection of life: and they that have done evil unto 
 the resurrection of damnation." 
 
220 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 Christ had spoken of the spiritual resurrection from 
 death in sins in the 25th verse : 
 
 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming and 
 now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of 
 God; and they that hear shall live." 
 
 The hour mentioned is hoth present and future, and no 
 mention is made of graves. There is a restriction made 
 by the clause, "They that hear," which signifies that all 
 do not hear in that sense. The Jews marveled at this, 
 so Christ spoke of a resurrection that was to take place in 
 the future, the resurrection of all that were in the graves, 
 an occurrence that was still more marvelous. Only the 
 bodies, the natural bodies are in the graves. Jesus 
 teaches that all bodies in the graves shall come forth in a 
 resurrection. Therefore he teaches the resurrection of 
 the natural bodies. 
 
 Argument VII. My- next argument is that the resur- 
 rection of the natural bodies is declared by the apostle 
 in plain and unmistakable language. 
 
 Acts xxiv. 13-15: "Neither can they prove the things 
 whereof they now accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, 
 that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the 
 God of my fathers, believing all things which are written 
 in the law and the prophets; and have hope toward God, 
 which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a res- 
 urrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." 
 
 II Cor. i. 9: "But we had the sentence of death in our- 
 selves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God 
 which raiseth the dead." 
 
 The Jews had accused Paul of many things they could 
 not prove, but they allowed or agreed with him in regard 
 to the resurrection of the bodies both of the just and 
 unjust. 
 
 Rom. viii. 10, 11: "And if Christ be in you, the body is 
 
MR. DAILY'S SECOND SPEECH. 221 
 
 dead because of sin; but the spirit is life, because of right- 
 eousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Christ 
 from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from 
 the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit 
 which dwelleth in you." 
 
 A distinction is here made between the spirit and the 
 body. The resurrection of Jesus is mentioned as an ex- 
 ample of the resurrection of his people. The word "also" 
 indicates that the same thing will be done to them that' 
 was done to him in his resurrection; that is, that their 
 bodies will be raised. Tn harmony with this the apostle 
 asserts that he "shall change our vile body, that it may 
 be fashioned like unto his glorious body." Philip iii. 21. 
 
 I Cor. xy. 42-44: "So also is the resurrection of the dead. 
 It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is 
 sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weak- 
 ness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is 
 raised a spiritual body." 
 
 The resurrection of those only who are Christ's at his 
 coming is spoken of in this connection of scripture. 
 What is sown in corruption ? The Body. What is raised 
 in incorruption? The same body. What is sown in dis- 
 honor ? The body. What is raised in glory ? The same 
 body. What is sown a natural body ? The natural body, 
 of course. What is raised a spiritual body? The same 
 natural body. The antecedent of the pronoun "it" is 
 "the dead" mentioned in this connection. The thing 
 that was sown is that that is dead, the body, It is the 
 same thing that is declared to be raised in incorruption, 
 glory, power, and a spiritual body. 
 
 (Time expired.) 
 
222 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 MR. HUGHES' SECOND REPLY. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen — 
 In reference to my question, how can an immaterial 
 body suffer punishment, my friend answers, "Just as 
 an immaterial spirit can!" That does not answer! A 
 material body can suffer material punishment. It en- 
 dures pain, and pain implies waste; and a material body 
 cannot endure pain beyond a certain extent without re- 
 sulting in death. But the question recurs, how can an 
 immaterial body suffer material pain or injury? If it 
 suffers "just as does an immaterial spirit," then it must 
 be, in conscience, remorse or shame, and for the life of 
 me J cannot see how a body material can sutler, in con- 
 science. This is not to be slurred over ! I want to know, 
 how an immaterial body' can suffer by stripes or in fire 
 and brimstone. Shall we have an answer? The ques- 
 tion of punishment is now before us. It was not before. 
 My friend would have been glad to have drawn me off 
 on side issues. It was his only refuge when called upon 
 to. reply to my argument. He is in the lead now; and 1 
 ask,, is the punishment in the future world to be in con- 
 science or in hell fire ? If he says in conscience, let him 
 remember that the totally depraved have no conscience 
 against sin. They love it; it is their native element, 
 and they enjoy it, as Mr, Daily has before borne witness. 
 If he says in hell fire, I ask again, how can an imma- 
 terial body suffer. in fire, or in any other way? 
 
 As to the resurrection of the tody, he went into it be- 
 cause I did. I beg his pardon. 1 did not go into the 
 question of the resurrection of the body only in answer 
 to him. I had two distinct arguments on the resurrec- 
 tion, but not of the body. That was his "pet theory," 
 
223 MR - hughes second reply. 
 
 and not mine ! As to his "exploding" my theories on 
 the resurrection, you, my friends, will remember there 
 was more noise than execution. 
 
 Mr. Daily is mistaken about his quoting Scripture to 
 prove what man is as to "body and soul." His position 
 .was that the "real man was the. body," and a spirit was 
 given him. He said the body was the "principal com- 
 ponent part of man." He never defined what the soul is. : 
 He also quoted passages to prove by the application of 
 pronouns that the material man owned the soul, was his 
 property, I suppose. But I showed you that pronouns 
 were applied to the body just as well, as in "our out- 
 ward man," "We that are in this tabernacle:" II Cor. 
 iv. 16, v. -L But all he has said on that topic was not 
 in proof of the resurrection, he now says. And I thought 
 it was irrelevant on the first proposition, and now he 
 admits it is on the second. 
 
 Yes, I believe man is soul and body now, and T believe 
 he will be soul and body in the resurrection state ; but 
 I do not believe that he will have the "natural body 
 there ;" and Brother Daily's proposition says' it will, be a 
 "spiritual body" there, and the work for him to do is to 
 prove that the natural body will be raised a spiritual 
 body, and I want the Scripture which describes the 
 change from one body to the other in coming up: out of 
 the grave. 
 
 I call particular attention here to the phrase,, "the 
 dead;" for on the meaning of that phrase turns this con- 
 troversy. His position requires that it should mean 
 dead bodies in the graves, for he says that "it is the 
 thing that dies that is raised in the resurrection." This 
 I denv, and affirm that he cannot show that these words 
 
a 24 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 ever have that meaning in the New Testament. Now, 
 "Christ rose from the dead/' and his resurrection is 
 spoken of as being from Hades, and not from the grave. 
 St. Peter testifies, "He seeing this before, spake of the 
 resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell 
 (Hades), neither his flesh did see corruption." Acts ii. 
 31. The word soul (psuche) is wanting in the original 
 Greek, so in recent translations it reads, "he was not left 
 in Hades/' and according to this testimony, his resur- 
 rection was not from the grave. Again, he read in Rom. 
 x. 7, "Who shall descend into the deep? (abyss) that is 
 to bring up Christ again from the dead." The abyss re- 
 lates to Hades, and therefore the term "the dead" does 
 not refer to the grave, but to him in Hades. The word 
 Hades and its corresponding word in the Old Testament 
 do not mean the grave, but the state of the dead. The 
 Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge gives this testi- 
 mony on this point: "It has justly been observed that 
 Hades and the corresponding word Sheol are always sin- 
 gular in meaning as well as form. The word for grave 
 (keber) is often plural. The former never admits the 
 possessive pronouns, being the receptacle of all the dead, 
 and therefore incapable of appropriation to individuals ; 
 the latter frequently does. When mention is made of the 
 spirit after death, its abode is called Hades." Article 
 on Hades. To the same import is Dr. George Campbell, 
 who says: "So much for the literal sense of Hades, 
 which, as has been observed, implies properly neither 
 hell nor the grave, but the place or state of departed 
 souls." On Four Gospels, Vol. 1, p. 296. These author- 
 ities make a clear distinction between Hades and the 
 grave; and as St. Peter shows, Christ's resurrection was 
 
mr. hughes' second reply. 225 
 
 from Hades, the unseen state, which is the abode of all 
 the dead ; so man's resurrection is from Hades, the state 
 of the dead, and not of the natural body from the grave. 
 Brother Daily is therefore mistaken in believing the res- 
 urrection of the dead to mean a resurrection of dead 
 bodies from the grave. Mr. Daily has had up the case 
 of the rich man and Lazarus, which he calls history. I 
 ask him, on that supposition, if Lazarus had been sent to 
 warn the rich man's brethren, where would his resurrec- 
 tion have been from — from Hades or the grave ? 
 
 Having thus shown that the phrase, the dead, does 
 not mean dead bodies in the graves, let it be understood 
 that the mere quoting of passages which speak of the 
 resurrection of the dead does not prove the resurrection 
 of the natural body, such as the Savior's reply to the 
 Sadducees, "And there shall be a resurrection from the 
 dead, both of the just and the unjust." This my friend 
 has been doing largely, which I call a mere begging of 
 the question. I am not denying the resurrection of the 
 dead, and claim all those passages on my side of the 
 question. They make no mention of the natural body. 
 Besides, in the reply to the Sadducees Jesus asserts that 
 God is not the God of dead bodies, or "dead things," 
 but of the living. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were then 
 living, for God was their God, and the fact that they 
 were then living proves that they had already been raised 
 from the dead. "Now that the dead are raised, Moses 
 showed at the bush. For God is not a God of the dead, 
 but of the living, for all live unto him." Luke xx. 37, 
 38. The dead are raised. Mark's account asserts the 
 same thing, literally translated: "But as touching the 
 dead, that they are raised'' Mark xii. 26. I insist on 
 
226 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 the tense of the verb here as in I Cor. xv. 15. But we 
 are informed that this is a historical present, and that is 
 absolutely all that stands between him and utter defeat. 
 But that will not save him, for that would put Christ's 
 resurrection in the future also. "For if the dead are not 
 raised, neither hath Christ been raised." One is an ac- 
 complished fact as well as the other. 
 
 But as to Christ's resurrection, Brother Daily says he 
 "did not say that Christ's resurrection body was in its 
 natural state." Certainly not ! How could he, when he 
 is trying to prove that all natural bodies will be raised in 
 a spiritual state? That is his proposition. He dare not 
 assert that Christ's natural body was ever seen by mortal 
 man after his burial. But how does this prove the res- 
 urrection of all natural bodies? Where is the connec- 
 tion between his premise and his conclusion ? 
 
 But again, if Christ's resurrection is to a spiritual 
 state, and that is the proof of a resurrection to a spirit- 
 ual state of all natural bodies (and that is his proposi- 
 tion), then how can Brother Daily avoid universal salva- 
 tion? I know he has said that I Cor. xv. only relates 
 to the resurrection of the righteous. But if that is so. 
 how, then, does it prove the "resurrection of the natural 
 bodies of all the dead to a spiritual state." Turn which- 
 ever way you will, my brother, you are entangled in a 
 web of your own weaving. How can any man arrive at 
 a universal conclusion from a special case ? 
 
 I remarked that St. Paul' said the "outward man per- 
 ishes," and that he knew nothing further of the outward 
 man. But Brother Daily says he did know, as he said. 
 "It is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual body." 
 But there is no it in the original there, standing as the 
 
mr. hughes' second repey. 227 
 
 antecedent of body. Just above, in the 37th verse, Paul 
 says, "Thou sowest not that body which shall be." 
 "But God giveth it a body, and to every seed his own 
 body.'' That is its proper or kind of body. Does Paul 
 mean to say God giveth a body a body? The word body 
 is not the antecedent of the pronoun it here. Put body 
 in the place of it, and you will see the absurdity of it at 
 once. 
 
 Man, as he is here, is mortal. Immortality is never 
 predicated of him in this life. The dissolution of soul 
 and body is called death. At death the spirit rises to 
 the higher life, and is clothed upon with its house from 
 heaven, and being clothed upon with its heavenly vest- 
 ure, it puts on immortality, and death is swallowed up 
 of life. 
 
 The insinuation that I believed that Christ's body was 
 stolen away by his disciples, as reported by the soldiers, 
 is most unfair. I have not intimated any such thing. 
 And this coarse and uncalled-for insinuation, coupled 
 with his allusion to the bribe of money, indicates that 
 my friend has forgotten the amenities that belong to 
 Christian gentlemen in a religious controversy. The ap- 
 pearances are that he is considerably shaken already. I 
 say frankly, I do not know what became of his natural 
 body. I do not believe that any man can tell how it was 
 disposed of. That belongs to a higher power than man's. 
 And as I said before, I do not believe his body was ever 
 seen of man after it was sealed up in Joseph's tomb. 
 For the greater part of the forty days before his ascen- 
 sion he was invisible to his disciples. He appeared to 
 them eleven times at most, and then they did not know 
 him until he revealed himself to them. I will read here 
 
228 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 an extract from Bishop Wescott's Gospel of the Kesur- 
 rfeetion, p. 111. He takes the position that there was an 
 objective reality in Christ's appearance to Paul, as well 
 as the others, and surely he did not appear to Paul in 
 his natural body. "But this objective reality was not 
 limited to one outward shape. It was apprehended vari- 
 ously by various minds. Thus we find that the forms of 
 the Lord's manifestations were, according to the evan- 
 gelists; most varied. A marvelous change had passed 
 over him. He was the same, yet different." Again, on 
 p. 145, he speaks of preserving the identity by "mould- 
 ing the new element/' of which a future 'body may be 
 fashioned. With all this I heartily agree. 
 •■■■ As the appearances to his disciples of Christ were al- 
 ways in such form that they did not know him until 
 he revealed himself to them, the proof is positive that 
 he was not raised in his natural body. And his appear- 
 ances to his disciples in the various forms of those ap- 
 pearances fill all the requirement of what is said con- 
 cerning his resurrection. And when Christ's body was 
 raised it was a spiritual body ; and when he appeared to 
 his disciples it was in a spiritual body; then there is no 
 proof in those facts of the resurrection of his natural 
 body ; but they are legitimate proofs of a spiritual res- 
 urrection. In all the passages my friend quotes, not 
 one of them mentions Christ's body, and therefore all 
 his proofs are but inferences from false premises. 
 
 Strange that Job, by the words "out of my flesh," as 
 in the margin; or "from my flesh," as in Eevised Ver- 
 sion, or in the American Bible Union Translation, 
 "without my flesh, shall I see God," should mean "that 
 looking out from his flesh he should see God." The ex- 
 
MR. HUGHES' SECOND REPLY. 229 
 
 pressions are so very similar ! And all of this when 
 Brother Daily does not believe that Job's resurrection 
 body would be a body of fleshy but a spiritual body. I 
 think it would have been more to his credit to have said 
 frankly, "I was mistaken about Job." 
 
 I did not say, "It takes some little time to learn what 
 I believe/" 7 but what I know about the terms relating to 
 the resurrection of the dead, such as Sheol, Hades, etc., 
 referring to his quotation from Hosea. "I will ransom 
 them from the power of the grave (Sheol)." "Well," 
 says Brother Daily, "let it mean the state of the dead. 
 It is the body that is dead." But the body is not in 
 Sheol, and so this text does not refer to the resurrection 
 of the natural body. And my friend comes in contact 
 with those authorities I quoted, and runs counter to 
 what Peter and Paul said about the resurrection of 
 Christ from- Hades. This is another one of my friend's 
 "proofs" that is most emphatically on my side of the 
 question. 
 
 "But many that sleep in the dust of the earth," as 
 Mr. Daily quotes it. is restricted in its meaning, because 
 it reads, "many of them," and a child knows that "many 
 of them" does not mean all of them. The Hebrew rob 
 lie refers to is defined by Dr. Young, in his Analytical 
 Concordance : many, abundance ; and is translated 
 "'many" and multitude. But neither of those words 
 alone are universal terms. And they only so mean when 
 there is an article before them, as "the many," or "the 
 multitude."" Strange that the words, "many of them," 
 must now mean all men, when it was impossible for the 
 words, "the many," to so mean in Rom. v. 19: "For as 
 by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners^ 
 
23O SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 so by the obedience of one shall the many be made right- 
 eons." The case being altered, alters t£ie case. The ne- 
 cessities of a case have little respect for the laws of lan- 
 guage or the legitimate meaning of words. 
 
 But if Martha, was mistaken in her belief in the resur- 
 rection at the . last day, Jesus would have corrected her. 
 That is just what he did when he called her mind back 
 to himself, . saying, "I am the resurrection and the life. 
 The life is here, and the resurrection is here. He that 
 believeth in me,, though he should die, yet shall he live, 
 and he that liveth and believeth in me shall never die." 
 Jno. xi 25, 26. In him they beheld the resurrection 
 and the life realized to them in the living, vital present. 
 "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall 
 hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear 
 shall live." Jno. v. 25. The last day is the dispensation 
 of Christ in. which he shall perform all his work. "Abra- 
 ham rejoiced to : see. his day." Jno. viii. 56. And St. 
 John says, "It is the last time." I John ii. 18. 
 
 In my friend's . sixth argument he makes the surpris- 
 ing statement that "Christ not only gave assent to the 
 doctrine of the resurrection, but plainly taught it," and 
 refers to Luke xx. 20-37. Who ever denied that Christ 
 taught the resurrection? Is he so bewildered that he 
 does not remember that I used this Scripture as one of 
 my proofs? The resurrection of the natural body is the 
 issue between us. Is he begging the question again? 
 He says that a class there had already attained to all the 
 resurrection claimed by me. Yes, sir; and that was the 
 raising of the soul into an immortal body, so that "they 
 could not die any more." And so far as the resurrection 
 of the then dead was concerned it was fulfilled, so that 
 
MR. HUGHES' SECOND REPLY. 23 1 
 
 Jesus could say, "Now that the dead are raised, Moses 
 showed at the bush." The natural body is not men- 
 tioned here, and there is no future tense here. I before 
 showed that the phrase "they that shall be accounted 
 worthy," rightly translated, would be, "they having 
 been accounted worthy." 
 
 In the quotation from I Thess. iv. 16, 17, "The dead 
 in Christ shall rise first/' I ask my friend to tell us what 
 is to happen after that. They are to rise before what? 
 Is there any resurrection after that ? Or is it only "then 
 a change of the living." When Christ comes, as in that 
 passage, he brings the raised dead with him, verse 14. 
 Where did the dead come from, heaven or the grave ? 
 
 But wonders never cease. We have Brother Daily 
 teaching two resurrections with an interval between 
 them, and now he qoutes Jno. v. 28, 29. "An hour is 
 coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear 
 his voice and come forth." How long an interval lies 
 between the two resurrections? A little light in a dark 
 place, if you please? If I understand rightly, he be- 
 lieves the resurrection in Jno. v. 25, "The hour is com- 
 ing, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of 
 the Son of God, and they that hear shall live," is a moral 
 one. Well, that in Jno. v. 28, 29, is but an extension of 
 the same. The word "graves" can be used figuratively, 
 just as well as the phrase "the dead." Besides, the word 
 rendered graves literally means tombs, sepulchres. And 
 all the dead are not in tombs; in fact, a large part of 
 mankind have never been buried in any way. And he 
 will not insist that the word "all" means all mankind. 
 He has too large a record for that. How, then, does the 
 passage help him ? 
 
232 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 In Acts xxiv. 15, which he has quoted so very many 
 times, the words -"of the dead" in the revised Greek text 
 are -left out, and in all the later versions reads "There 
 shall be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust," 
 and there is not the most distant allusion here to the 
 natural body.- But take again his quotation, II Cor. i. 9 : 
 "God which raiseth the dead." This cannot relate to the 
 natural body, because this is again that bothersome 
 present tense. I wonder if it is a "historical present?" 
 The same tense is again found in Acts xxvi. 8 : "God 
 doth raise the dead." Revised version. Then again, Jno. 
 v. 21 : "The Father raiseth up the dead, and quicheneth 
 them." None of these passages can mean the raising up 
 of dead bodies from the graves. 
 
 My friend's next argument is Rom. viii. 11: "The 
 quickening of mortal bodies by his spirit which dwelleth 
 in you." I suppose men have mortal bodies here, and 
 that they are quickened as active instruments of right- 
 eousness here also ; and that is all the text means. Just 
 above Paul says "If Christ be in you the body is dead/' 
 and the spirit is to quicken the body into service. As 
 "present your bodies a living sacrifice," Rom. xii.l. And 
 again in Rom. vi. 12, 13 : "Let not sin therefore reign 
 in your mortal body, that you should obey it in the lusts 
 thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments 
 of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves unto 
 God as those that are alive from the dead, and your mem- 
 bers as instruments of righteousness." I suppose Paul 
 did see with outward vision natural bodies, but in spir- 
 itual insight he did not look upon them as the supreme 
 thing, and his whole thought absorbed of them every 
 moment of his life. For he speaks of them as "tern- 
 
MR. DAILY'S THIRD SPEECH. 233 
 
 poral" and "perishing." He strove to "keep the body 
 under :" "to mortify and crucify it •" for he said in his 
 "flesh there dwelt no good thing." But he "delighted in 
 the law of God after the inward man." Eom. vii. 22. 
 But my friend has continually rung the changes about 
 seeing men before him. Though he now confesses all of 
 that was an introduction, and had nothing to do with 
 the questions in debate, I do not see why an introduc- 
 tion should last throughout the whole discussion. If 
 Solomon had lived to this day, he would not have said 
 "There is nothing new under the sun." 
 
 Of what good is it to raise the natural body when it 
 must be changed before it can live in a spirit world? 
 Will not the "house from heaven" answer every purpose ? 
 And now I ask, must all the matter in the body from 
 infancy to old age be raised up? Or which of the many 
 different bodies are to be raised? Is the matter in the 
 body at death any more select and sacred than that in the 
 vigor of manhood ? 
 
 {Time expired.) 
 
 ME, DAILY'S THIED SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Eespected Audience, 
 Worthy Opponent — I am before you for the' purpose 
 of making my last speech of this afternoon, and I desire 
 to give some attention to what my opponent has said in 
 the speech to which you have so patiently listened. 
 
 In regard to the nature of the punishment of the im- 
 material body, he says he does not see how an immaterial 
 
234 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 body can suffer material pain or injury. I have not 
 said it did suffer material pain or injury. Then he says 
 the immaterial body must suffer in conscience, remorse, 
 or shame, and adds, "For the life of me, I cannot see 
 how a body material can suffer in conscience." Such 
 confusion in the use of the terms material and imma- 
 terial is due to his disconcerted state of mind. He has 
 argued that the spirit will suffer in the future world, 
 and it is immaterial, so I insist that the body immaterial 
 of those who die in their sins will likewise suffer. The 
 nature of the suffering does not enter into the discussion 
 of this proposition. 
 
 He accused me of going into the resurrection of the 
 dead in the discussion of his proposition. I replied that 
 I only went there to follow him. He argued that all 
 would be raised to incorruptibility and immortality, and 
 that death would be swallowed up in victory. I replied 
 by showing the impossibility of that which is immortal 
 (the spirit) being raised to immortality, and he has not 
 been able to set aside that argument against his position 
 on the resurrection. Also, I showed the impossibility- of 
 death ever being really destroyed if the body, the only 
 part that dies, never comes forth from death. This he 
 cannot meet. He says he believes man is, soul and body 
 here, and that he will be soul and body in the resurrec- 
 tion state, but he does not believe his body will ever be 
 raised. Then that much of man will never be holy and 
 happy. He has argued that man is a child of God by 
 creation, that is, the spiritual part of man, which he calls 
 the real man. Why does he say now that man is both 
 soul and body here? At one time he says that man is 
 only a spirit who merely has a body to live in, and at 
 
MR. DAILY'S THIRD SPEECH. 235 
 
 another time he says man is both spirit and bod}'. 
 
 He says the term "the dead" does not refer to the 
 dead body in the grave. On the occasion of the raising 
 of Lazarus, it is said, "And he that was dead came forth, 
 bound hand and foot.'' The dead mentioned here means 
 the dead body in the grave. Martha testified that he had 
 been dead four days and was evidently stinking. She 
 meant the dead body, of course. So when mention of the 
 dead is made, the corporeally dead, it is understood that 
 the body is referred to, for that is what dies. 
 
 He says Christ's resurrection was not from the grave, 
 but from hades, the state of the dead. Well, in rising 
 from the state of the dead Christ arose from the grave. 
 The sisters went to the sepulchre early in the morning to 
 anoint Christ, The angel which they saw there said. 
 "Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth which was crucified: he is 
 risen: he is not here : behold the place where they laid 
 him." Mark xvi. 6. Why, in the face of this plain testi- 
 mony, which is so plain that all can understand it, does 
 Mr. Hughes deny that the body of Christ was raised from 
 the grave in his resurrection from the dead? It is to 
 hold up his doctrine. He knows that if he admits that 
 the body of Christ arose from the grave in his resurrec- 
 tion, he is defeated so far as this part of my proposition 
 is concerned, and that the whole fabrication of Univer- 
 salism falls. He would rather cling to a false system 
 than admit the unmistakable teaching of the word of 
 God. As the term "the dead" meant the dead body in 
 the grave in the case of Christ, and as that body that was 
 dead arose from the grave and from the state of death, 
 and as this is a demonstration of the resurrection of the 
 dead as shown by Paul in I Cor. xv. 4-20, it follows that 
 
236 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 this part of my proposition is proved beyond all question 
 or doubt. 
 
 But he says he does not knoAv what became of Christ's 
 natural body. Then it may be he thinks the soldiers were 
 right in telling that the disciples came and stole it away. 
 He says he does not believe his body was ever seen by 
 man after it was sealed up in Joseph's new tomb. Christ 
 said to his disciples when they were slow to believe, "Be- 
 hold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle 
 me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye 
 see me have." Luke xxiv. 39. That was the body of 
 Christ, and the disciples saw it. Mr. Hughes may not 
 l>elieve it, but it is true sure. Of course, to admit it 
 means death to his theory, but this passage is absolutely 
 susceptible of no other interpretation than what the 
 plain language asserts. 
 
 He says, "When Christ's body was raised it was a 
 spiritual body, and when he appeared to his disciples it 
 was in a spiritual body." This sounds much like he is 
 on my side of the question. But he immediately says, 
 "There is no proof in these facts of the resurrection of 
 his natural body," and "In all the passages my friend 
 quotes, not one of them mentions his body." How are we 
 to understand him when he says in one breath that 
 Christ's body was raised, and in the very next that it 
 was not ? 
 
 That which was living of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 had not died, for Jesus taught, "He that liveth and be- 
 lieveth in me shall never die." In saying God was not 
 the God of the dead, Jesus did not teach that the dead 
 should not rise. In saying the dead are raised, he taught 
 merely the fact of the resurrection of the dead without 
 
 
MR. DAILY'S THIRD SPEECH. 237 
 
 reference to time. Paul declared that Hymeneus and 
 Philetus erred concerning the truth in saying the resur- 
 rection is past already, and said they overthrew the faith 
 of some by their erroneous teaching. It seems that my 
 opponent is teaching the same error. 
 
 He says I teach two resurrections. I certainly do. 
 The first is a resurrection of the soul from death in sin. 
 as taught by Paul in Eph. ii. 1. This is experienced in 
 regeneration. It is taught by Jesus in John v. 25, "The 
 hour is coming and now is when the dead shall hear the 
 voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." 
 Then in the 28th verse he says. "The hour is coming in 
 which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice 
 and shall come forth/' This is a resurrection from the 
 grave. My opponent says this is only figurative. This 
 is a mere assumption of his. The term graves is used, 
 not indicating that all will be in a literal grave in the 
 ground, but indicating that what will be raised from the 
 dead will be in the earth as dead bodies. 
 
 I desire to call your attention now to I Cor. xv. 36, 37, 
 in which Paul says, "Thou fool, that which thou sowest 
 is not quickened except it die : and that which thou sow- 
 est, thou sowest not that body which shall be." Brother 
 Hughes is placing great reliance upon that expression of 
 the apostle as teaching that the body that dies is not the 
 one that is raised. The illustration of planting grain 
 was used by some, and Paul corrected them in using it. 
 He calls them "fools" for using it. In planting grain a 
 living seed is planted, which sprouts up and bears grain. 
 In putting the dead body into the ground it possesses no 
 life, and does not sprout up like the grain. Paul teaches 
 that the body is sown in corruption, not as a living thing 
 
238 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 like the grain sown. The very identical thing that is 
 thus sown in corruption is to be raised in incorraption. 
 That is what the language teaches as plainly as language 
 could teach anything. If he wants to be in company 
 with the "fools" who used that illustration, he has my 
 consent. 
 
 The term "of the dead" in Acts xxiv. 15 is clearly 
 implied in the Greek, and so it is given in King James' 
 translation. As there shall be a resurrection both of the 
 just and of the unjust, that resurrection is yet future. 
 and we know it means the resurrection of the dead. 
 
 I ask your attention again to John vi. 54 : "Whoso 
 eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
 life; and I will raise him up at the last day." As those 
 referred to here have eternal life already, they have ex- 
 perienced a resurrection. They are to have another 
 resurrection at the last day: not a resurrection of the 
 living, but a resurrection of the dead. This closes my 
 line of arguments on the resurrection. I would have 
 given more arguments on this part of my proposition. 
 but I desire to give time to the discussion of the second 
 part. 
 
 I now pass to the discussion of the second part of my 
 proposition, which is that part of the Adamic race will 
 suffer endless punishment. I am aware that Universal - 
 ists insist upon having the word endless in propositions 
 of this kind to be discussed, for the reason that the word 
 is not used in the scriptures in reference to the punish- 
 ment of the wicked, thinking thereby to get some advan- 
 tage in the wording of the proposition. They are in the 
 habit of treating the words eternal, everlasting, forever, 
 forever and ever, as mere temporaries which apply to 
 
MR. DAILY'S THIRD SPEECH. 239 
 
 time only, and for a definite period, while they insist 
 that the word endless is necessarily of infinite duration. 
 I frankly confess that those words are sometimes used in 
 an accommodated sense to mean a limited period of time, 
 but this does not signify that they haye no specific mean- 
 ing, and that no word except endless expresses infinite 
 duration. 
 
 In my arguments and proofs of the second part of my 
 proposition, I shall have occasion to refer to a number 
 of passages that contain the words eternal, everlasting, 
 and forever. As I anticipate some dispute regarding the 
 signification of these terms, I now propose to show that 
 the real signification of the Greek words from which 
 these terms are translated is duration without end. I 
 propose to do this, not only by the definition of these 
 words, but also by their use in expressing the eternity of 
 God and the endless duration of the righteous in the 
 future world. 
 
 The Greek words to which I refer are aion and aionios, 
 the former being a noun and the latter an adjective. 
 There is no Greek word in the Greek language better 
 adapted to express endless duration than aion. Unfading 
 is expressed by am arantos {a negative and marainomai 
 to fade) ; unchangeable, by ametatlietos (a negative. and 
 metatithemi to change) ; incorruptible, by apthartos (a 
 negative and plitliartos corruptible) ; immortal, by 
 a tli an at os (a negative and tlianalos death) ; indissoluble, 
 by akatalutos (a negative and l-ataJutos dissolved). 
 These words are compounded with a negative, and none 
 of them could be employed as a substitute for aion. 
 
 Aion is from aei. always, and on, being. Combining 
 these, we have aion. always being. Strong's Exhaustive 
 
240 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 Concordance defines aion as follows: age, course, eter- 
 nal, f orevermore ; aionios, eternal, forever, everlasting. 
 Parkhurst says, aion, eternity, whether past or to come; 
 aionios, eternal, having neither beginning nor end ; eter- 
 nal, without end. It is universally admitted as an estab- 
 lished law of philology that a word must be taken in its 
 literal sense unless the context imperiously demands a 
 different meaning. Aion and aionios always designate 
 an indefinite, unlimited time when employed merely for 
 the purpose of expressing future time. It is never used 
 in the New Testament to express a definite, limited 
 period when reference is had to futurity. If I have not 
 made a mistake in my reckoning, the Greek noun aion is 
 to be found in the New Testament 104 times, 65 of 
 which it expresses endless duration. The Greek word 
 aionios, an adjective, occurs 71 times, 46 of which refers 
 to God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, 65 of which refers 
 to eternal life and blessedness, and 21 to eternal death 
 and punishment. 
 
 I shall now notice a few places in which the meaning 
 of aionios has to be taken in an unlimited sense, as ex- 
 pressing endless duration. 
 
 I Tim. i. 16, 17 : "Howbeit for this cause I obtained 
 mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth 
 all longsuffering, for a pattern to them that should here- 
 after believe on him to life everlasting (aionion). Now 
 unto the King eternal (ton aionon), immortal, invisible, 
 the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever 
 (eis tons aionas ton aionon)." 
 
 Eom. i. 20 : "For the invisible things of him from the 
 creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood 
 by the things that are made, even his eternal power 
 
MR. DAILY'S THIRD SPEECH. 24 1 
 
 (oidios dunamis) and godhead: so that they are without 
 excuse/' 
 
 Aidios, adj., aidlstes, n. : perpetuity, eternity. This 
 word is used twice only, in this and in Jude 6. 
 
 II Cor. v. 1. : "For we know, that if our earthly house 
 of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of 
 God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heav- 
 ens (aionion en tous ouranois) " 
 
 Eom. vi. 23 : "The gift of God is eternal life (life 
 eternal, {zoe aionios) " 
 
 There can be no dispute about the signification of the 
 Greek words in these passages. We are agreed that when 
 the words are used in reference to the duration of God's 
 existence and the duration of the happiness of the 
 righteous, they signify endless duration, but we differ 
 about the meaning of the very same words when used 
 with reference to the punishment of the wicked. My 
 position is that this word axon as a noun and aionios as 
 an adjective is the best word that could have been used to 
 express endless duration, and for this reason it was em- 
 ployed to express the endless existence of God and the 
 everlasting duration of the joys of the righteous. In my 
 next speech I will make this clear by presenting a number 
 of passages bearing upon these points. It will devolve 
 upon my opponent to try to show that the Greek words 
 do not mean the same when applied to the punishment of 
 the wicked as they do- when applied to the existence of 
 God and the joys of the righteous. For instance, in the 
 expressions following, the same Greek word is used to ex- 
 press duration : "An house not made with hands, eternal 
 in the heavens," and " Suffering the vengeance of eternal 
 fire." Duration is here expressed, and reference is made 
 
242 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 to futurity. They are the same, identically the same. It 
 is sheer folly to deny it. This will be made stronger in 
 the passages I shall give in my next. 
 (Time expired.) 
 
 MR. HUGHES' THIRD REPLY. 
 
 Respected Auditors — I arise to present the last ad- 
 dress of the afternoon. I will, of course, have your very 
 great commiseration for my "disconcerted" state of mind 
 after listening to the very powerful remarks my friend 
 made in his last speech on the resurrection of the natural 
 body. 
 
 He says the nature of the suffering m endless punish- 
 ment does not enter into the discussion of this proposi- 
 tion. We shall see. The point that distresses him is 
 how, according to his position, the wicked can be pun- 
 ished a I", all. He argued that they could not be punished 
 in this world, because they loved sin, and enjoyed it. 
 You will remember what he said about the drunkard, and 
 the sinful in general. Well, according to him, there will 
 be no change after death, so evidently they will enjoy sin 
 in the future state. The wicked, being totally depraved. 
 can have no moral sense, and therefore cannot surfer in 
 conscience here or hereafter. He tells us the wicked will 
 have immaterial bodies in the resurrection, and he refuses 
 
MR. HUGHES THIRD REPLY. 243 
 
 to inform us how an immaterial body can suffer physical 
 pain, so I charge the reason why he does not try to ex- 
 plain is that he knows just as well as you or I do that he 
 is in a corner, and he cannot explain. His only attempt 
 to extricate himself was in this wonderful statement: 
 "The body immaterial will suffer just as the spirit im- 
 material will suffer in the future world." But the imma- 
 terial spirit does surfer here in conscience, and in the 
 same way can suffer in the future state, if not entirely 
 depraved. But the material body here cannot suffer in 
 conscience, and can suffer only in a material way, and in 
 the future it will be immaterial, and then cannot suffer 
 material punishment. Can there be any wonder why 
 Brother Daily backs right down and refuses to discuss 
 this point? 
 
 Let it be remembered that I did not say that the "im- 
 material body would suffer in conscience," as he repre- 
 sents me. That I affirmed of the spirit. 
 
 I showed that it was man that dies, that the dissolution 
 of soul and body is what is called death. ' That in the 
 resurrection the soul is clothed upon with its house from 
 heaven, and that is the resurrection; and man becomes 
 immortal, and death is swallowed up in victory. The 
 terms immortality and incorruptibility are never applied 
 to man until after the resurrection. There is no confu- 
 sion here. 
 
 I have said that the term "the dead" never means dead 
 bodies in the graves. And my respected opponent makes 
 no attempt to show to the contrary; the reason is, he 
 cannot. And he must do that or he fails to show that 
 "the thing that dies' is the subject of the resurrection. 
 The case of Lazarus was a special one. It was not a 
 
244 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 resurrection to immortality. Nor was he classed among 
 "the dead." 
 
 My friend says : "In rising from the state of the dead 
 he (i. e., Christ) arose from the grave." The state of the 
 dead is in hades. Now, was Christ in hades or in 
 Joseph's tomb? Which? Could he be in both at the 
 same time? St. Peter says his resurrection was from 
 hades. "He was not left in hades." My good friend is a 
 little mixed here. It was a fact, therefore, that he was 
 not there, he was risen; but his material body had gone 
 from their sight forever. And they were to learn that. 
 whatever became of his material body, his real resurrec- 
 tion was from the unseen state. So all his appearances 
 was in the spiritual body. I offer my friend the follow- 
 ing syllogism : 
 
 Christ's after-death appearances to his disciples dem- 
 onstrate his resurrection. 
 
 But his appearances were in a spiritual body. 
 Therefore, his resurrection was in a spiritual body. 
 It has a strange look for Mr. Daily to say, "Maybe he 
 thinks the soldiers were right in saying the disciples 
 came and stole away Christ's body," and then to add, "He 
 says he don't believe any man ever saw his body after it 
 was sealed up in Joseph's tomb." After such statements 
 it would seem an honest confession would relieve the 
 situation for Brother Daily right here. The latter state- 
 ment I believe. I do not believe that his body was stolen 
 by his disciples. How could I, when I do not know how 
 his body was disposed of? Dr. Townsend, who believed 
 in the resurrection of Christ's natural body, inquires: 
 "Where is that body ? We do not know where it is. The 
 record says nothing about it, and beyond the record we 
 
MR. HUGHES THIRD REPLY. 245 
 
 cannot go. We might say the fleshly covering was anni- 
 hilated, or that it underwent a gradual transformation, 
 or was cast off, and the gross materials flung back to 
 earth, but it is only safe to say that he has. a glorious 
 body, which is now the type of our resurrection body, 
 without flesh, without blood." Credo, p. 307. 
 
 Dr. Townsend was a man of high standing in the 
 Methodist Church ; a teacher in their theological school 
 in Boston. He evidently, though believing in the raising 
 of Christ's natural body, did believe that was his real 
 resurrection, which was in his glorious body, without 
 flesh and bloody and the type of our resurrection. Nor 
 does it follow, if Christ's natural body was raised, that it- 
 was for more than an outward demonstration to his dis- 
 ciples ; which, after all, was just as well answered by his 
 appearances to his disciples. And they were alwa}^ 
 called appearances, in which they did not know him until 
 he revealed himself to them. Dr. Westcott says: "A lit- 
 tle reflection will show that the special outward forms 
 in which the Lord was pleased to make himself sensibly 
 recognizable to his disciples were no more necessarily 
 connected with his glorious person than the dress which 
 he wore.** This will serve to explain the showing of his 
 hands and feet and the wound in his side. Mr. Daily 
 believes that Christ was raised in a spiritual state, as he 
 believes all men will be. So he does not believe in the 
 appearance of Christ in his natural body in any instance 
 more than I do. 
 
 Brother Daily calls attention to I Cor. xv. 36, 37, and 
 says I place great reliance on the words "Thou sowest not 
 that body which shall be." I most certainly do, and hold, 
 that it stands diametrically opposed to my friend's whole 
 
246 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 theory of a materialistic resurrection. He says some used 
 the illustration of sowing grain, and Paul corrected them 
 in using it, That is clear assumption! It was Paul's 
 own illustration. He calls them simpletons for not be- 
 lieving the simple truth taught by the illustration, and. 
 right there is where my friend takes sides against St. 
 Paul. Men sow bare grain, and it is not the grain sown 
 that springs up into new life. "But God giveth it a 
 body as it hath pleased him." Men sow living grain, not 
 dead grain. Dead grain would never germinate and' 
 grow. So it is man in his present state that is sown, 
 while here in his body, and before his death. The burial 
 of a dead body is not sowing it for a future resurrection. 
 In the passage, "] d in corruption; it is raised in 
 
 incorruption," there is no "it" in the original, and it 
 might be rendered "There is a sowing in corruption; 
 there is a raising in incorruption." r ] body is 
 
 not the antecedent here of the pronoun it. It is an im- 
 personal pronoun. -. it rains/' Just 
 Ld "Cod giveth it a body,'' and that does not 
 q God giveth the body a body. And in the question 
 answering: "How are the dead raised up, and with 
 what body do they come?" The dead are spoken of, and 
 the pronoun the dead, and if that term 
 stands for dead bodies in the graves, then the question 
 How are the dead bodies raised up, and with what 
 body do the dead bodies come?" And this makes ridicu- 
 lous the whole theory of a materia' resurrection. 
 
 I wish further to show the utter absurdity of making 
 the words "sown in corruption, in dishonor, in weakness," 
 and a natural body apply to the burial of the natural 
 body. The word spciro, here rendered sown, does not 
 
MR. HUGHES THIRD REPLY. 247 
 
 mean the burial of anything in the ground, but rather 
 the process of scattering of seeds. Thapto refers to the 
 burial of a corpse. "Suffer me first to go and bury my 
 father" (Matt. viii. 21) is an instance. 
 
 The word for "corruption" here does not mean the 
 state of a dead body, but rather the natural condition of 
 humanity during life, through the destructive effects of 
 sin in the human organization. As in Gal. vi. 8 : "He 
 that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corrup- 
 tion." The corruption of a dead body is from another 
 word which does mean it appropriately. Acts ii. 27, 31 : 
 "His flesh saw no corruption.'' 
 
 The burial of a dead body is not sowing it in "dis- 
 honor," especially when we bury it in all possible respect 
 in costly casket and covered with flowers. But thou- 
 sands do defile and dishonor their bodies in their vile 
 practices in this life. 
 
 To speak of burying a corpse in "weakness" seems a 
 stupid misuse of words. "Weakness does not mean wholly 
 devoid of strength. The weakness and infirmities of the 
 flesh in this life are conspicuous facts of experience ; but 
 who having a sense of intelligent speech will write about 
 the weakness of a corpse ! 
 
 The dead body deposited in the grave is not said to be 
 a natural body (soma •■ psuchil'on, psychical body). Yerse 
 44. Adam was a representative of the natural or psych- 
 ical body. "And so it is written, the first man Adam 
 was made a Vicing sou 1 ." Yerse 45. But he did not be- 
 come a living soul till God breathed into his nostrils the 
 breath of life. Gen. ii. 7. And he is the type of the man 
 here who is a psychical body. The natural or physical 
 body is an outward and visible organ of the human soul 
 
248 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 fitted to the conditions of this life, and is here put in 
 contrast with the spiritual body. It is a contrast between 
 the conditions of our earthly life in the body and those 
 of the heavenly life in incorruption, honor, and glory, 
 and power in the spiritual body. Dr. Whitly says : "It 
 seems probable that the word sown doth not relate to the 
 body being laid in the earth, but rather its production in 
 this world; for when it is interred, it is no longer an 
 animal body, but a body void of life." Commentary 
 in loco. 
 
 Mr. Daily has made much use of the words of Paul: 
 "fie had hope toward God, that there shall be a resurrec- 
 tion, both of the just and the unjust," Acts xxiv. 15. It 
 is the only text he can claim on his grounds in proof of a 
 universal resurrection. Tt is now time to call a halt here. 
 This was Paul's hope; and does Mr. Daily presume to say 
 Paul hoped 'any one would be raised unjust, and conse- 
 quently to endless perdition? Does my friend himself 
 hope that a single soul will be raiser! to such a condition? 
 Paul's hope was a universal one, for both the just and the 
 unjust; because he believed "i I s alive in 
 
 Christ. "' Mo one could hope for less than that, unless 
 among those Calvinists who believe "The view of the 
 misery of the dai 11 double ' the love 
 
 and gratitude of the saints in heaven," as did Jonathan 
 Edwards. 
 
 The two resurrections which I referred to was one in 
 which Mr. Daily said the righteous dead were to be 
 raised first, that is, as I understand him, before the 
 wicked. But when I referred him to his quotation, "the 
 hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shah 
 hear his voice and come forth, " he believes in a moral 
 
MR. HUGHES' THIRD REPLY. 249 
 
 resurrection here and a material resurrection hereafter ! 
 Seeing they attain to eternal life here, and are inex- 
 pressibly happy in heaven for thousands of years, of what 
 possible good is his resurrection of the material body ? 
 But in Jno. v. 28, 29, he sees that the term graves, tombs 
 or sepulchre-, does not contain all the. dead. But then 
 it means, for sooth, "that what will be raised from the 
 dead will be in the earth, as dead bodies" — and so we 
 have a new definition of the term nmeois, tombs or sepul- 
 chres. It means in the earth ! 
 
 Jnst one question before I advance to the second part 
 of his proposition. Just in what way, or by what text of 
 scripture, has Brother Daily proven that the natural 
 bodies of the wicked will be raised in a spiritual state or 
 in immaterial bodies ? That is a part of his proposition, 
 the part that the remainder of his proposition relates to. 
 And he must prove that, or else he cannot prove that that 
 part will surfer endless punishment. And I here state he 
 has not proved it, nor has he even attempted to prove it. 
 Will he give some attention here? 
 
 We will have no dispute about the meaning of the 
 English words eternal and everlasting, further than their 
 biblical usage is concerned. He refers to the Greek 
 words oion and aionios, the noun and its adjective de- 
 rived from it. I agree to his law of philology, which he 
 so ruthlessly ignored all through the discussion of the 
 first proposition. And I affirm that the first or literal 
 meaning of axon is not eternity, nor is the first meaning 
 of aionios everlasting. Also, I affirm that these words 
 never of their own natural force have these meanings, 
 if they ever rise to the unilimited sense, it is because of 
 the nature of the things to which they are applied. So 
 
250 SKCOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 Prof. Tayler Lewis says of the words "I live forever" 
 (Dent, xxxii. 40) , spoken of God in such a way as to 
 mean nothing less than the absolute or endless eternity: 
 "But it is the subject to which it is applied that forces to 
 this, not to any etymological necessity in the word itself." 
 Diss, on Olamic or Eeonian words in Scripture, Lange's 
 Com. 
 
 So it does not avail Brother Daily to cite passages 
 where these words are applied to God to prove that they 
 so mean when applied to punishment. Yet he says : "It 
 will devolve upon my opponent to try to show that the 
 Greek words do not mean the same when applied to pun- 
 ishment of the wicked as they do when applied to the 
 existence of God and the joys of the righteous." I did 
 not expect him to beg the question at the very first on 
 this question. He is in the affirmative, and it devolves 
 on him to show that these words mean the same when 
 applied to punishment as when applied to God's exist- 
 ence. He must also show that there is something in the 
 nature of punishment that so requires, and that endless 
 is the natural first meaning of these terms. 
 
 I now ask attention to the definition of aion and 
 aionios as given by Liddell and Scott in their late Stand- 
 ard Lexicon. There is no higher authority. 
 
 I. Aion, one's lifteime, life, an age, generation. II. A 
 long space of time, an age, ton aiona forever, a space of 
 time clearly defined or marked out, an era, epoch, age, 
 period or dispensation. Aionios. 1. Lasting for an age, 
 perpetual. 2. Like aidios, everlasting, eternal. 
 
 It will be seen that the first meaning of these words is 
 not never-ending duration, but "an age," and 'lasting for 
 an age." 
 
MR. HUGHES' THIRD REPLY. 25 I 
 
 The Septuagint. the Greek translation of the Old Tes- 
 tament, made from two to four hundred years before 
 Christ, was the Bible in the hands of Jesus and his apos- 
 tles, and the one they quoted from. That translation 
 rendered the Hebrew olam by aion and aionios in their 
 various forms. And we are interested in knowing how 
 that word was understood in Old Testament times, for 
 that is the way they understood the words aion, aionios. 
 Tn I Chron. xvii. 17, David had promise that his throne 
 should be .established forever, and that his house should 
 be established forever. Xow, how did he understand the 
 forever spoken of here some six times in this chapter? 
 His answer is. "'Thou hast spoken of thy servant's house 
 for a great vine to come" Read the whole chapter, my 
 friends, and you will see that David's definition of /or- 
 is a "great while to come," and not endle-s. 
 
 Take, again. Lam. iv. 19. 20: •'•'There, Lord, re- 
 mainest forever* thy throne from generation to genera- 
 tion. Wherefore dost thou forget us forever, and forsake 
 so long time.". Xow here 'long time" stands as the 
 equivalent of forever, so that word does not mean end- 
 less. 
 
 Xow. if the words forever and everlastings as the trans- 
 lations of aion and aionios, ever mean never-ending, they 
 do when applied to God and his attributes, and where 
 the subject matter forces to it: and we are told "his 
 anger endureth but a moment," while "his mercy en- 
 dureth forever." Ps. xxx. 5, exxxvi. 1-2Q. Again, "He 
 retaineth not his anger forever, because he delighteth in 
 mercy." Micah vii. 18. How can these texts be recon- 
 ciled with the doctrine of endless misery ? 
 
 I ask your particular attention to these words, my pa- 
 
252 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 tient auditors : "For the Lord will not east off forever : 
 for though he cause grief, yet he will have compassion 
 according to the multitude of his mercies; for he cloth 
 not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." 
 Now, these words have a general application, and are 
 hasecl upon* the multitude of God's mercies, and because 
 he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of 
 men. Now, if endless punishment is true, then there is 
 a contradiction in the Scriptures. 
 
 Take another passage from the Evangelic Prophet: 
 "For I will not contend forever; neither will 1 always he 
 wroth; for the spirit should fail before me. and the souls 
 which I have made." Isa. Ivii. 16. Notice the reasons 
 given why Jehovah will not contend forever and why he 
 will not always he wroth. They are not special reasons; 
 and .remember, also, that God says "he will not always 
 chide, neither will he keep his anger forever." And the 
 reason given is that "He is merciful and gracious, slow to 
 anger, and plenteous in mercy." IV. eiii. 8, 9. Besides. 
 if more abundant proof need he given. "I am merciful. 
 saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." Jer. 
 iii. 12. These things T present to you from God's pre- 
 cious word. Take them home with you. Read them 
 carefully; ponder over them, and then ask yourselves 
 whether God's niercy will endure forever, and then if it 
 is possible for God the Father to cast off any of his ehil- 
 , dren forever. 
 
 (Time expired.) 
 
MR. DAILY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 253 
 
 ME. DAILY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen — ■ 
 I trust that we feel grateful this morning that we are 
 permitted to come together for the purpose of continu- 
 ing our investigation of the teaching of the sacred word 
 of God. Before I proceed with my affirmative arguments 
 I shall attend to the things said by my opponent in his 
 speech yesterday afternoon which seem pertinent to the 
 subject under discussion. 
 
 I say again that the nature of the punishment inflicted 
 in the future world does not enter into the discussion of 
 the question. Suffering will be endured by the wicked 
 in the future world. He says they will suffer in their 
 souls in the future world. I say they will suffer in both 
 soul and body. Though they die in the love of sin, yet I 
 shall prove at the proper time that they will go away into 
 everlasting punishment. That is all the proposition re- 
 quires me to prove. He paid no attention to my argu- 
 ment that sinners do not suffer here in conscience in pro- 
 portion to their crimes, or in their physical bodies. Now 
 he says they suffer in conscience. He did not dare to say 
 that in the discussion of his proposition, for he was con- 
 fronting the unanswerable argument that sinners are not 
 punished here in proportion to their guilt. 
 
 He said he showed that it was man that dies. He has 
 argued that man is composed of both spirit and body 
 while here, though he. in the beginning of the discussion, 
 and at other times, argued that the real man was spirit 
 only. I proved in my first speech on this proposition 
 that the body without the spirit is dead. I proved that 
 at death the spirit separates from the body. 1 reasoned 
 
254 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 from this that at death it is the body, and not the spirit, 
 that dies. To this lie can give no reply. It is true that 
 the separation of the spirit from the body is called death, 
 bnt the question is, what is it that dies? Is it the spirit, 
 or is it the body. It is never said that the spirit without 
 the body is dead, but it is said that the body without the 
 spirit is dead. Then if the dead is raised, it is the body 
 that is raised, for it is the body that is dead. He says 
 immortality and incorruptibility never belong to man in 
 this life, yet he has argued that the spirits of all are the 
 children of God, were created in his image, and have 
 never lost that image. He says the term, "the dead." 
 never means "dead bodies in the grave." It means dead 
 bodies, whether in the grave or out of it, for the body is 
 dead after the spirit leaves it. He says the case of Laz- 
 arus is a special one. Well, suppose it is. Christ said 
 of that special case, plainly, "Lazarus is dead." Now, 
 what was dead ? Let us come to the question fairly, with- 
 out any equivocation. If we determine what was dead 
 in that special case, will it not serve as a general prin- 
 ciple to decide the question that i- now before us? 
 "When Jesus came he found that he had lain in the grave 
 four days already." John xi. IT. AVho had lain in the 
 grave? The dead Lazarus. When Jesus ordered the 
 stone taken away, Martha protested, saying, "Lord, by 
 this time he stinketh; for he hath been dead four days." 
 Was she not speaking of the dead body in the grave? 
 "Then they took away the stone from the place where the 
 dead was laid." This was the dead body in the grave. 
 Yet Mr. Hughes denied that Lazarus was classed among 
 the dead. Jesus said he was dead, Martha said he was 
 dead, the record that John gave declared he was dead, 
 
MR. DAILY S FOURTH SPEECH. 255 
 
 yet Mr. Hughes says he was not classed among the dead. 
 What will he say next to try save his sinking cause ? 
 
 Proof that the term "the dead'" means dead bodies is 
 so abundant that I can only have time to refer to a few 
 places. Num. v. 2 : "Whosoever is defiled by the 
 dead." Num. ix. 10 : "If any man of you or of your 
 posterity shall become unclean by reason of a dead body." 
 Compare these and see whether "the dead" means the 
 dead body. Jesus said to the disciples of John, "The 
 dead are raised up." He meant dead bodies, of which one 
 was raised from the grave. Mr. Hughes argued that "the 
 dead" means dead bodies in the grave in this text, "God 
 is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Now he 
 say? the term "the dead" never means dead bodies! 
 Wherever the literally or corporeally dead are meant, "the 
 dead" means the dead bodies in the grave, or the dead 
 bodies out of the grave. He denies that the thing that 
 dies is the subject of the resurrection. I ask, is not the 
 thing that dies the subject of the resurrection of the 
 dead ? It must be either the thing that dies or the thing 
 that does not die. But how can the thing that does not 
 die be the subject of the resurrection of the dead ? Come, 
 no evasion here. 
 
 He asks if Christ was in Hades or in Joseph's new 
 tomb. If he means by Hades the mere state of the dead, 
 Christ was in both and rose from both. In rising from 
 the state of the dead he rose from Joseph's tomb. Re- 
 ferring to that new sepulchre, it is said, "There laid they 
 Jesus." John xix. 42. Let my opponent deny this and 
 he denies the Bible. Will he do it? Mary Magdalene 
 said to Simon Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved, 
 "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, 
 
256 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 and we know not where they have laid him." When 
 John came to the sepulchre he saw the linen clothes, and 
 when Peter came he saw the linen clothes and the napkin. 
 It is then said of John that "he saw and believed." "For 
 as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise from 
 the dead." Now the question to be determined is, what 
 was it that rose from the dead? If it is certain that it 
 was the body, then it is certain that the resurrection of 
 the dead means the resurrection of the body. 1. Jesus 
 was laid in the sepulchre. 2. Jesus was not there when 
 the sisters and disciples visited the sepulchre after his 
 resurrection. 3. The angel said he had risen from the 
 dead, and so was not there. What had been laid in the 
 sepulchre? His body. What was not there after his res- 
 urrection? His body. What had risen from the dead? 
 The body that had been laid in the sepulchre, but was 
 not there. 
 
 In denying the resurrection of the dead body of Christ, 
 my opponent disputes the plain teaching of Jesus when 
 he said to his disciples, "Destroy this temple, and in 
 three days I will raise it up again/' John ii. 19. He 
 meant his body. See verse 21. In making this denial he 
 denies the record, which says, "Behold my hands and my 
 feet, that it is I myself : handle me, and see ; for a spirit 
 hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." Luke xxiv. 
 39. Also, he denies the testimony that convinced doubt- 
 ing Thomas, when Jesus said to him, "Eeach hither thy 
 finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, 
 and thrust it into my side : and be not faithless, but be- 
 lieving." John xx. 27. It had been reported that Jesus 
 had risen from the d'ead. Thomas said to the other disci- 
 ples, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the 
 
MR. DAILY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 257 
 
 nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and 
 thrust my hands into his side, I will not believe." The 
 body of Christ, that body which was nailed to the cross, 
 is meant here, as everybody knows. Then when Thomas 
 saw him, he exclaimed, "My Lord and my God." Jesus 
 showed that he had believed because he had seen him, and 
 said, "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have 
 believed." The resurrection of Christ's body is here fully 
 demonstrated, and so his prediction or promise was ful- 
 filled, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise 
 it up again." It is strange that Mr. Hughes, in the face 
 of all this plain and unmistakable proof, will stand up 
 and deny the resurrection of Christ's body. It is plain 
 that he only does so to save his cause and hold up his 
 false theory. 
 
 He says the pronoun "it" is not in the original in the 
 sentence, "It is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spirit- 
 ual body." The Greek verb speiretai requires the pro- 
 noun "it" to introduce the verb in the English. "It" 
 here is not an impersonal pronoun, the same as "it snows, 
 it rains," allow me to say, with all due respect to the 
 scholarship of my opponent. It is a personal pronoun, 
 introducing the verb, whose real subject, "natural body," 
 is in the predicate, being also the antecedent of the pro- 
 noun. The language clearly declares that the body sown 
 was a natural body, and that the same body was raised 
 spiritual. The copulative and passive verb are often in- 
 troduced by the personal pronoun "it," with an antece- 
 dent in the predicate, which is the real subject of the 
 verb. 
 
 His effort on the Greek verb speiro shows the weakness 
 of his cause. If it does mean to scatter, it is the proper 
 
258 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 word to indicate the death and burial of dead bodies, as 
 Paul here uses it, for they thus become scattered. His 
 argument that the sowing here means the production of 
 man in his present state here is absolutely false. The 
 subject is introduced in this chapter by the apostle's ref- 
 erence to the burial and resurrection of Christ, and an 
 argument made on that is a demonstration of the fact of 
 the resurrection of the body of Christ as the first fruits 
 of them that slept, meaning the dead which sleep in 
 Jesus. From this he continues to argue that as Christ's 
 body was in a state of death and was raised therefrom, 
 so the bodies of "them that slept," the "dead in Christ," 
 should be raised in incorruption, in glory, in power, and 
 spiritual bodies. Being sown in weakness means simply 
 that in going down into death the body shows weakness, 
 so much so that it succumbs to the enemies' attack. His 
 efforts to hold up his theory are certainly desperate, but 
 they cannot stand before the plain teaching of the word 
 of God. 
 
 As to the meaning of axon, I showed it was made up of 
 two words which signify ever being or being forever. We 
 are to determine the New Testament meaning of the 
 word by its use in the New Testament. The meaning of 
 aion and aionios, when applied to the future or invisible 
 world, is what we are now to determine. Brother 
 Hughes refers us to Isa. lvii. 16 in an effort to disprove 
 endless punishment. But you will please notice that 
 there is a contrast shown in the 20th and 21st verses of 
 this chapter : "But the wicked are like the troubled sea, 
 when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. 
 There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." This 
 shows that the ones with whom God would not always 
 
mr. daily's fourth speech. 259 
 
 be wroth were not the wicked, but his people. My oppo- 
 nent argues that there will be peace to the wicked; God 
 says there will not. The use of the disjunctive conjunc- 
 tion "but" shows this contrast. This is an answer to all 
 the references he made to the Old Testament teaching. 
 He says there is no higher authority than Liddell and 
 Scott on the Greek. Well, their lexicon defines aion as, 
 meaning eternity and aionios as meaning eternal. The 
 learned Moses Stuart says : "As the most common and 
 appropriate meaning of aion, in the N^w Testament, 
 and the one which best accords with the Hebrew word 
 holam (which the Septuagint nearly, always renders by 
 aion), and which therefore deserves, the first rank in re- 
 gard to order, I put down, an indefinite period of time;, 
 time without limitation; ever, forever, time without end, 
 eternity; all in relation to the future." He admitted; 
 yesterday that he did not know anything about the He- 
 brew; we will see if he knows anything about the Greek, 
 When I closed my speech yesterday afternoon I was 
 giving passages in which the word aion necessarily 
 means duration without end.. I shall resume that line 
 this morning. "And served the creature more than the 
 Creator, who is blessed forever" (aionas). ' . Rom..i. 35, 
 "Who is over all, God blessed forever." Rom. ix, 5. 
 "To whom be glory forever." Rom,..xi. 36. "To God, 
 only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ : forever." . Rom. 
 xvi. 27. "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Christ, 
 which is blessed forevermore." II Cor. xi. 31. I refer 
 you to the following passages containing the. same Greek 
 word as applied to the duration . of , God's . existence : I 
 Pat. i. 25; II Pat. iii. 18; Eph.iii, 21;,Cal. i. 5; Phil, 
 iv. 20 ; I Tim. i. 17 ; II Tim. iv.,18 ; Heb, xiii. 21 ; I Pet. 
 
260 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 v. 11; Eev. i. 6; Rev. x. 6; Rev. xv. 7; Rev. i. 18; Rev. 
 iv. 9 and 10; Rev. vii. 12. 
 
 Now, to dispute that the Greek word, from which the 
 terms "forever" and "forevermore" are translated in 
 these passages, means duration that is endless, would 
 make one appear ridiculous before this intelligent audi- 
 ence. To further ascertain the New Testament use and 
 meaning of the word aionios, I shall now show that it is 
 employed to mean perpetual, never ending, eternal, in 
 regard to the happiness of the righteous. 
 
 Matt. xix. 16: "What, good thing must I do that I may 
 inherit erternal life?" 
 
 Matt. xxv. 46: "But the righteous shall go away into life 
 eternal." 
 
 John iv. 14: "It shall be in him a well of water springing 
 lip into everlasting life." 
 
 Tit. i. 1. "In hope of eternal life." 
 
 Tit. iii. 7: That we might be made heirs according to 
 the hope of eternal life." 
 
 II Cor. iv. 7 : "A far more exceeding and eternal weight 
 of glory." 
 
 In these passages and in a great many more that I 
 could use, had I the time to do so, there can be no ques- 
 tion about the meaning of the Greek words, that they 
 signify endless duration. So I shall argue, when I come 
 to prove the endless punishment of the wicked, that the 
 same words, when used with reference to that in the fu- 
 ture world, mean duration without end. 
 
 Argument VIII. My eighth argument, which is the 
 first on the second part of my proposition, is based on 
 the moral turpitude of sin. God's character, against 
 whom sin is committed, is infinite, so that an offense 
 committed against such a being is necessarily infinite, as 
 it is a volation of an infinite obligation to love and serve 
 
MR. DAILY'S FOURTH SPKECH. 26 1 
 
 an infinite being. The moral law of God is, like him- 
 self, perfect, unchangeable and eternal, being a trans- 
 cript of the divine mind. This law embraces the penalty 
 of transgression. There is no provision in law for the 
 extension of mercy to those who violate it and incur its 
 penalty. As the offense against such a law is infinite, 
 the deserving punishment must also be infinite, for it is 
 not in the province of punishment to remove guilt when 
 that punishment is inflicted upon the guilty. Sin dis- 
 places infinite holiness, and so is infinite in its nature 
 or moral turptude, and deserves punishment of infinite 
 duration. 
 
 Argument IX. My ninth argument is founded upon 
 the contrast drawn between the righteous and wicked in 
 the Scripture, while they live here and at death. 
 
 First contrast: Ps. xxxvii. 37: "Mark the perfect man, 
 and behold the upright; for the end of that man is peace." 
 Ps. xxxvii. 38: "But the transgressors shall be cut off." 
 Job xxvii. 20-22: "Terrors take hold upon him as waters, a 
 tempest stealeth him away in the night The east wind 
 carrieth him away, and he departeth; and, as a storm, hurl- 
 eth him out of his place. For God shall cast upon him, and 
 not spare: he would fain flee out of his hands. 
 
 Second contrast: Ps. cxvi. 5: "Precious in the sight of 
 the Lord is the death of his saints." Prov. xi. 7: "When 
 the wicked man dieth, his expectation shall perish; and the 
 hope of unjust men perisheth." 
 
 Third contrast: Prov. xiv. 32: "The righteous hath hope 
 in his death." The same verse: "The wicketd is driven 
 away in his wickedness." 
 
 Fourth contrast: Num. xxiii. 10: "Let me die the death 
 of the righteous, and let my last end be like his." II Pet. 
 ii. 12: "But these as natural brute beasts, and made to be 
 taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things they under- 
 
262 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 stand not ; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption ; 
 and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness." 
 
 Fifth contrast: Luke xvi. 22: "And it came to pass, that 
 the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abra- 
 ham's bosom." "The rich man also died and was buried; 
 and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments." 
 
 These passages show a marked contrast between the 
 righteous and wicked in this life, up to the time of 
 death. Those who die in wickedness, hating God and all 
 that is good, pass from this world with the manifest dis- 
 pleasure of God upon them. Their lives go out into 
 eternity steeped in moral pollution, with all the guilt of 
 a corrupt and criminal life, in the enmity and strength 
 of unholy passions, and having no fear of God before 
 their eyes. Dying in the full strength of their moral de- 
 pravity, they carry that depravity into the future world. 
 As this has placed him in contrast with the righteous in 
 thi p world, so it does immediately after death. As there 
 will be a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust, 
 this contrast will exist at the time of the resurrection. 
 As no change will thus take place in them between death 
 and the resurrection, this contrast will continue after 
 the resurrection, and so forever. 
 
 Argument X. My next argument is based upon the 
 doctrine of a future and general judgment. 
 
 Acts. xxiv. 25: "And as he reasoned of righteousness, 
 temperance, and a judgment to come." 
 
 II Cor. v. 10: "For we must all appear before the judg- 
 ment seat qf Christ." 
 
 Rom. ii. 16: "In the day when God shall judge the 
 secrets of men." 
 
 Rom. xiv. 10: "For we shall all stand before the judg- 
 ment seat of Christ." 
 
 II Pet. ii. 9: "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the goldy 
 
MR. HUGHES' FOURTH REPLY 263 
 
 out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day 
 of judgment to be punished." 
 
 Heb. ix. 27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to 
 die, but after this the judgment." 
 
 II. Tim. iv, 1: "I charge thee therefore before God, and 
 the Lord Jesus Christ ( who shall judge the quick and the 
 dead at his appearing and his kingdom." 
 
 1. This judgment is represented as a judgment to 
 come. 
 
 2. This judgment is to take place after death. For 
 this reason, G-od is said to be the God of the quick (or 
 living) and the dead. 
 
 In Heb. vi. 2, eternal judgment is mentioned after 
 resurrection of the dead. In Acts xvii. 31, we learn that 
 the day of judgment has been appointed. One of three 
 things must be true of this judgment: It is already 
 past, or it is being measured off now, or it is yet to come. 
 That the last named is true is proved by the passages I 
 have produced, beyond question. 
 
 (Time expired.) 
 
 MR. HUGHES' FOUETH EEPLY. 
 
 Gentlemex Moderators, Ladies and Gextlemex — ■ 
 Mr. Daily has just made an effort to prove that the 
 phrase, "the dead," means "dead bodies in the graves. " 
 Let ns see whether his work will bear inspection. 
 
 I affirm again that Lazarus was not classed among 
 "the dead.'' His resurrection was not from Hades and 
 to immortality; and he would not be included in that 
 
264 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 phrase till his final deaths when he had the common fate 
 of all men, and would have a like resurrection. We are 
 not to have a general conclusion from a special case. 
 The words in the 41st verse, "from the place where the 
 dead was laid," do not occur in the original Greek, and 
 are not in the Revised Version; so that removes them 
 from the account. In speaking of Lazarus as dead they 
 were speaking of his body, and he was dead to them. 
 His body was all that remained to them. They were 
 "looking at the things seen, and not the things unseen," 
 in which are the eternal realities. Theirs was not an ex- 
 act, scientific language. We speak of our friends as 
 dead, but in fact they are alive to God. We speak of our 
 loved ones as in the grave, but we know that that which 
 we prize most is not in the grave. They leave us, and, 
 
 "Altho' with bowed and breaking heart, 
 With sable garb and silent tread, 
 We bear their senseless dust to rest, 
 And say that they are dead ; 
 
 "They are not dead ! They have but passed 
 Beyond the mists that blind us here 
 Into the new and larger life 
 Of that serener sphere." 
 
 Yes; Jesus said, "The dead are raised," referring to 
 those he had raised; but they never were in graves, and 
 they are not in the purview of my question. Nor were 
 the dead bodies which would defile according to the law 
 of Moses. Num. v. 2. 
 
 Christ's natural body was in the tomb, but he himself 
 was in Hades, and his resurrection was from Hades. 
 <( He was not left in Hades/' so St. Peter. "Who shall 
 
MR. HUGHES ' FOURTH RKPLY. 265 
 
 descend into the deep (Hades) that is to bring up Christ 
 again from the dead/' so St. Paul. The resurrection 
 from the dead is from Hades therefore, and not out of 
 the graves. 
 
 Eeferring to Christ's raising the temple of his body, 
 that was fulfilled in the resurrection of his new and glo- 
 rious body. It is not essential for the same atoms of 
 matter to be in one's body at all times to be his body. 
 Common sense teaches that. Bishop Wescott explains: 
 "We can understand how the law which now rules the 
 formation of our body may find its realization hereafter 
 in some other element, while the new body will be es- 
 sentially the same as the old one,, as expressing the cor- 
 responding action of the same law in relation to the 
 new sphere in which it may be supposed to be placed," 
 Gospel of Kesurrection, p. 145. 
 
 I did not say Christ's natural body was not raised. I 
 said I did not know, and, not knowing, I could make no 
 affirmation concerning it. But what I did say, and do 
 say, is, that was not his real resurrection ; that was from 
 the unseen state. His natural body was never seen after 
 his burial, and all his appearances to his disciples were 
 in a spiritual body. 
 
 Mr. Daily is endeavoring to prove the resurrection of 
 the natural bodies of all men in a spiritual state. His 
 main argument has been the resurrection of Christ's 
 body in a spiritual state, on the ground that Christ's res- 
 urrection is a sample of the general resurrection. You 
 may imagine with what astounding surprise I just heard 
 him say of the appearance to Thomas : "The body which 
 was nailed to the cross is meant here, as every one 
 knows." Then Christ's body was raised in its natural 
 
266 SECOND PROPOSITION 
 
 state, with all its wounds, and not in its spiritual state. 
 And yon will remember with what vehemence he said, 
 in his second speech, "I did not say it was in his natural 
 state P And that he also said, Christ's body was spirit- 
 ual was the reason he could pass through the closed door. 
 
 Well, which is it, my brother ? Take your choice. I 
 knew very well when I received your proposition that 
 you had delivered yourself into my hands, bound hand 
 and foot. 
 
 I must still hold that the word "it" in the text, "It is 
 sown a natural body," etc., is an impersonal pronoun. 
 There is no antecedent expressed, that is sure. The 
 sown grain is the illustration. That is sure, also. The 
 grain sown contains a living germ. The body buried in 
 the grave does not. Man here has the living principle 
 within. It is man here that answers to the sown grain. 
 The body of the grain sown does not spring up, for Paul 
 says, "Thou sowest not that body which shall.be." Body 
 is not, therefore, the antecedent of the pronoun "it." 
 "God giveth it a body," and to make body the antecedent 
 of "it" involves the absurdity before pointed out : "God 
 giveth the body a body." And it is well to keep in mind 
 that God gives a body, and not the body of flesh and 
 blood. 
 
 I gave the real meaning of speiro, to sow, as scattering 
 seed. That is its usual meaning in the New Testament. 
 "But if it does," says Mr. Daily, "it is the proper word 
 here, for in death and burial they become thus scattered." 
 That is what I call luminous, the evidence of a fertile 
 mind ! That is what is meant by the apostle in sowing 
 in corruption, dishonor, weakness, and a natural body ! 
 The exti«me facility with whieh Brother Daily can 
 
MR. HUGHES' FOURTH RAPLY. 267 
 
 misrepresent my statements by leaving out a word, then 
 express his contempt, is most remarkable. Here is an- 
 instance: In his third speech he exclaims: "How are 
 we to understand him, when he, in one breath, says 
 Christ's body was raised, and in the very next says it was 
 not raised ?" Well, I did not say any such thing. This 
 is what I said: "If, when Christ's body was raised, it 
 was a spiritual body, and when he appeared to his dis- 
 ciples, it was in a spiritual body, what proof is there in 
 that of the resurrection of his natural body?" He left 
 off the word if, and made me say what I never intended 
 to say. He becomes very indignant and accuses me of 
 dishonest work; at least, that I adhere to positions I 
 know to be false. In his third speech he says, referring 
 to me: "He would rather cling to a false system than 
 admit the unmistakable teachings of the word of God." 
 
 Again, in his fourth speech : "It is plain that he only 
 does so to save his cause and hold up a false theory." I 
 do not know just what he expects to gain by this, but it 
 is only too evident that chagrin and anger stand out so 
 plain as not to be mistaken. He puts himself in the po- 
 sition of the man who was instanced as losing the argu- 
 ment by the deaf and dumb gentleman, because he got 
 mad ! It is barely possible that his opponent is as honest 
 and sincere in the prosecution of this discussion as him- 
 self. 
 
 All the reply we get to those passages which teach that 
 God "retaineth not his anger forever, that he will not 
 cast off forever, and that he will not contend forever," is 
 the old one," It is a class he will not cast off forever." 
 The wicked have no peace, and so he will cast them off 
 forever. But why does he cast off the elect at all ? It is 
 
268 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 the sinful he casts off. It is so here : "For the iniquity 
 of his covetousness was I wroth and smote him ; I hid me 
 and was wroth, and he went on his way frowardly, in the 
 way of his heart." This gives the reason why he was 
 east off and had no peace. On the principle of endless 
 punishment he would be cast off forever. But God will 
 not always be wroth. All of these passages are put upon 
 the general principles of the "multitude of God's mer- 
 cies/' and that "he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve 
 the children of men." God is no respecter of persons. 
 On the first proposition my friend seemed to believe that 
 the wicked do have peace; that they love sin and enjoy 
 it. And I could not convince him to the contrary, even 
 by quoting that "there is no peace to the wicked, saitli 
 my God." 
 
 Mr. Daily claims that he "showed that aion was made 
 up of two words, which signify ever, or being forever." 
 I recall that he made that statement, but I do not know 
 how he "showed it." Does a mere statement of his on a 
 disputed point show it? I thought proof was in order 
 in such cases. Will he condescend to give a little proof 
 on this point ? 
 
 He says, also, that the meaning of aion and aionios, 
 when applied to the future or invisible world, is what we 
 are now to determine ; and that is to be done by the use 
 of the word in the New Testament. But I will inform 
 him that that cannot be done by the mere reading of 
 texts and assuming their meaning as it pleases him. I 
 gave the definition of aion and aionios by Liddell and 
 Scott's Lexicon, last edition, and gave it correctly; and 
 they do not give eternity as one of the meanings of aion, 
 as Mr. Daily represents. Prof. Stuart's first definition of 
 
MR. HUGHES' FOURTH REPLY. 269 
 
 aion is "An indefinite period of time;" Strong's, as 
 quoted by my friend, was "age.' 1 So far the dictionaries 
 are against him as to first meaning of the word ; in fact, 
 all are as far as my knowledge goes. 
 
 In the usage of the word aion, as given by Brother 
 Daily, the most instances are in the plural and redupli- 
 cated form ; and all these are against him in proving 
 that the first and literal meaning of the word is eternity. 
 Eternity has no plural . There is but one eternity. Nor 
 do we reduplicate it and say eternities of eternities. This 
 fact alone is enough to refute his position on the defini- 
 tion of the word in dispute. Prof. Tayler Lewis says the 
 effect of immense duration '*is still further increased by 
 plurals and reduplications," which could not be true if 
 the word alone meant duration without end. 
 
 We have in the Xew Testament the phrases, "This 
 world," "that world," "world to come," and "end of the 
 world," thirty times in all of which the word world is a 
 translation of the word aion. Xow we cannot say this 
 eternity, that eternity, the eternity to come, and the end 
 of eternity. There are thirty times in the Xew Testa- 
 ment, therefore, in which aion does not mean eternity, 
 and the usage of the word is against my friend to that 
 extent, surely. 
 
 Take the cases quoted by Mr. Daily. There are in all, 
 in the plural, eight cases, and in reduplications twenty- 
 one cases. All of these show the effort upon the part of 
 the writers to extend the meaning which they felt was 
 wanting in the word aion itself alone. The same thing 
 is seen in the Old Testament. So Canon Farrar says-: 
 "If aion meant eternity, how came it to have a plural, 
 and how came the Jews to talk of forever and beyond? 
 
$f$ SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 The latter alone was decisive to the clear mind of Origen. 
 He says the authority of the Holy Scriptures taught him 
 that the word rendered eternity meant limited duration." 
 Mercy and Judgment, pp. 378-9. 
 
 St. Jerome, of the fourth century, translated the Bible 
 into the Latin Vulgate. He rendered the phrase eis 
 tons aionas ton aionon, Secula, Seculorum; rendered in 
 one version, forever and ever, and in the margin of the 
 Revised Version, for ages of ages. What, now, is the 
 sense of seculum in Latin ? Does it ever mean eternity ? 
 Never. It means a race or generation of animals or men ; 
 then a lifetime; then an age; then the men of an age; 
 then an indefinite period, of marked characteristics, as 
 in our age. St. Jerome was a scholar, and he evidently 
 did not understand axon in its most intense form to mean 
 endless duration. And if not in its repetitions, certainly 
 not when the word stands alone. 
 
 If axon means age, then its adjective aionios can mean 
 no more than belonging to the age, or lasting for an age, 
 in its first and most natural meaning ; and in its natural 
 force it is no proof of endless punishment. In its rise to 
 the force of everlasting or endlessness, it must be because 
 of the nature of the thing to which it is applied. It 
 therefore behooves my brother to show something in the 
 nature of punishment to force to that meaning. That it 
 may mean duration without end when applied to the ex- 
 istence of God, is no proof that it means the same when 
 applied to punishment. The adjective "good," when 
 applied to God, means infinitely good, but it does not 
 when applied to man. 
 
 The phrase, eternal life, when found in the New Tes- 
 tament, means the life of the Christian age, the life 
 
MX. HUGHES FOURTH RKPI.Y 2fl 
 
 which is its peculiar product^ the life of the Gospel; in 
 other words, spiritual life— -the divine life in the soul. 
 This life is not subject to space or time relations. It is 
 the aionion life, as defined by Jesus. "This is eternal 
 life, that they might know thee, the only true God, and 
 Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Jno. xvii. 3. Or as 
 St. John has it, "That we may know him that is true, 
 and we are in him that is true, even his Son, Jesus 
 Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." I John 
 v. 20. It is the true knowledge of God and Christ that is 
 eternal life. And so "he that hath the Son, hath life." 
 I John v. 12. "He that believeth the Son, hath eternal 
 life." John vi. 47. 
 
 Our word, eternal, has acquired a meaning appropri- 
 ate to aionion when applied to this life, of which it is 
 said: "In him was life, and the life was the li^ht of 
 men." John i. 4. 
 
 The third definition of the Century Dictionary is : "In 
 a special metaphysical use, existing outside of all rela- 
 tions of time; independent of all time conditions; not 
 temporal." 
 
 The Standard Dictionary follows in the . same line : 
 "Eternal 4th Def. Independent of time and its condi- 
 tions, or of things that are perishable ; unchangeable ; im- 
 mutable; also, of or pertaining to eternity; not tempo- 
 ral; as, eternal truths. Timeless carries, perhaps, the 
 fullest idea of eternal, as above and beyond time, and not 
 measured by it." 
 
 These definitions of eternal, following the scriptural 
 definitions of eternal life, make of none effect all my 
 friend's efforts to show that eternal life means the same 
 as endless life, and as instances of the application t© fa- 
 
272 S^COStD PROPOSITION. 
 
 ture time of the word aior^ios. 
 
 The Old Testament is to be heard on this question ; 
 and you will remember that Brother Daily failed to pay 
 atttention to the definitions of David and Jeremiah of 
 the word forever, representing olam and axon, as being 
 "long time." Will he now note the following passages ? 
 
 "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, 
 and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an ever- 
 lasting covenant." Gen. xvii. 7. "And I will give unto 
 thee, and to thy seed after thee, all the land of Canaan 
 for an everlasting possession." Gen. xvii. 8. That cir- 
 cumcision was to be an everlasting covenant. Gen. xvii. 
 13. That the Aaronic priesthood was to be everlasting. 
 Ex. xl. 15. That the making of an atonement was to be 
 an everlasting statute. Lev. xvi. 34. That by law a 
 servant could become a servant forever. Deut. xv. 17. 
 And that when Jonah was swallowed by the whale, he 
 went down to the bottoms of the mountains, and that the 
 earth and her bars were about him forever, which was 
 three days and three nights. Jonah ii. 6. In none of 
 these instances does the word everlasting and forever 
 mean endless; and I can give hundreds of similar char- 
 acter. 
 
 In my friend's eighth argument, on the moral turpi- 
 tude of sin, there are involved many infinite absurdities. 
 It is absurd to represent man as accountable to a law 
 above his capacity and which it is impossible to obey. . 
 Man is finite ; the law, he says, is infinite ; it is, therefore, 
 above his capacity. No finite being can understand an 
 "infinite obligation," nor can he fulfill it. Such a law 
 could be but a pretense to entrap and give excuse for in- 
 finite torment, A law that demands punishment infinite 
 
MR. HUGHES' FOURTH REPLY. 273 
 
 in duration, could with equal reason demand punish- 
 ment infinite in degree. And why is my friend dodging 
 the question of the nature of the punishment he believes 
 in ? Is it too horrible for even his sense of eternal right ? 
 But, he says, sin displaces infinite holiness. How can 
 one infinite displace another ? And how does it come 
 that infinite holiness never displaces sin ? The world of 
 mankind is at infinite disadvantage. It is an infinite 
 curse to be born into this world. They are under an in- 
 finite disability through no fault of their own. They 
 were born so, and absolutely helpless. God created them 
 so; he foresaw it, and ordained it. The whole responsi- 
 bility is on him. There is no help absolutely for man 
 but in God, and he gives none; or, if he does, it is to a 
 "class," the elect few, no better than the rest, selected in 
 the most partial manner. And then to add insult to in- 
 finite injury, tell them that God is no respecter of per- 
 sons ; that he loves the world ; that he is good to all, and 
 his tender mercies are over all his works. Even that he 
 takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather 
 that they should turn and live. If sin is infinite, then 
 every sin is infinite, and the child who steals an apple is 
 just as guilty as he who commits the sin against the Holy 
 Spirit, and will be punished with the same infinite dura- 
 tion. If all sins are infinite, and the atonement can be 
 no more than infinite, it can therefore cancel but one sin, 
 and for all the rest there is no atonement, and the result 
 is universal damnation. And this is my reply to this bit 
 of my friend's medieval theology. 
 
 The argument on the contrast between the righteous 
 and the wicked does not show a perpetuation of that con- 
 trast to eternity. It assumes that some will remain to 
 
274 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 the resurrection, and after which there is no attempt to 
 prove. The resurrection of the just and unjust was a 
 matter of hope with. St. Paul, and he could not have 
 "hope toward God" that a large part of the human fam- 
 ily would be raised to endless torment — a point I made 
 in my last speech, but ignored by Mr. Daily ; and as long- 
 as that stands his argument has no force. 
 
 My friend's last argument on the "'general judgment" 
 requires but a brief notice. There is judgment here, fu- 
 ture, and continuously throughout Christ's reign, and his 
 reign embraces both the living and the dead. The judg- 
 ment begins with his coming in his kingdom, which took 
 place within the lifetime of some of his disciples. "There 
 be some standing here which shall not taste of death till 
 they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matt, 
 xvi. 28. So St. Paul, "I charge thee before God, and 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick (liv- 
 ing) and the dead at his appearing and kingdom." II 
 Tim. iv. 1. So St. Peter said, "He is ready to judge the 
 quick and the dead." 1 Pet. iv. 5. Why get ready thou- 
 sands of years too soon? That this judgment includes 
 judgment in this life is evident from the words of the 
 prophet: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that T 
 will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall 
 reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and jus- 
 tice in the earth." Jer. xxiii. 5. This judgment 
 throughout Christ's reign is properly the ••eternal judg- 
 ment." An eternal judgment after the resurrection 
 makes quite a long "judgment day." This judgment 
 issues in victory: "He shall not strive, nor cry : neither 
 shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised 
 seed shall he not break, and smoking liax shall he not 
 
MR. DAILY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 275 
 
 quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory." Matt, 
 xii. 19, 20. "Every knee shall how of things in heaven, 
 of things in the earth, and things under the earth, and 
 every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of 
 God the Father." Phil. ii. 9-11. 
 (Time expired.) 
 
 MR. DAILY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators and Respected Audience 
 ■ — It is necessary for me to pay some attention to the ad- 
 dress to which you just patiently listened. Another sur- 
 prise is given us. He says Lazarus was not classed among 
 the dead. He says he would not be included in that 
 phrase till his final death. Are we to understand him to 
 mean by this that Lazarus was not dead? If not, what 
 does he mean? It is to be inferred from this that Mr. 
 Hughes admits his body was to be classed among the 
 dead when his final death came. Then his body is to be 
 classed among the dead now. But he says the words, 
 "from the place where the dead lay," are not in the orig- 
 inal, and are, therefore, removed from the account. Then 
 the translators, in saying "Then they took away the 
 stone from the place where the dead lay," made the mis- 
 take of supposing "the dead" was laid there. Mr. 
 Hughes' assertion and conclusion, if they amount to any- 
 thing, amount to a denial that "the dead" lay in the sep- 
 
276 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 ulchre or grave over which the stone had been laid. But 
 in the 34th verse, Jesus inquired, "Where have ye laid 
 him ?" The answer was, "Lord, come and see." It was 
 the dead body about which this inquiry was made. He 
 says their language was not exact, scientific language, 
 when they spoke of the body as being the dead Lazarus. 
 Why, he even criticises the language of Jesus himself in 
 this statement ! My learned friend pretends to great ex- 
 actness and most wonderful science in language ! He has 
 argued that the dead were raised to immortality when 
 freed from the body, supposing the term "dead" not to 
 refer to the body, but to the disembodied spirit. Laza- 
 rus was, then, enjoying a resurrection state when his 
 body was lying in the grave. If that be true, what did 
 Jesus mean when he said, "Thy brother shall rise again?" 
 Will he dodge this by asserting that Lazarus was not 
 really dead ? 
 
 He says Christ's natural body was in the tomb, but he 
 himself was in Hades, and that his resurrection was from 
 Hades. Does he mean that his body was still in the 
 tomb after his resurrection ? I assert that his body was 
 raised from the tomb. I have proved that assertion over 
 and over. Paul delivered to the Corinthians first of all, 
 as the very first principle of doctrinal truth, that Christ 
 had died and was buried, and that he rose again the third 
 day. ' I Cor. xv. 3, 4. It was the very Christ that was 
 buried in the tomb that rose again. Mr. Hughes argues 
 that Christ did not rise from the tomb at all, but that he 
 rose in the resurrection of his "new and glorious body." 
 His position flatly contradicts Paul, for Paul says it was 
 the Christ that was buried in the tomb that rose again, 
 while my friend says it was not. You can all see this 
 
MR. DAILY S FIFTH SPEECH. ' 277 
 
 contradiction, and so can he. Now, if the resurrection 
 of Christ is the resurrection of his "new and glorious 
 body/' a different body from the one that was buried, 
 not the one that was buried at all, but an entirely differ 
 ent one, and the resurrection of his people is the resurrec- 
 tion of a like "new and glorious body/ 7 why has he ar- 
 gued that in the resurrection the body comes down from 
 above? That might, perhaps, be called a resurrection of 
 the living soul into a body that comes down, but certainly 
 it could not be termed a resurrection of the body at all. 
 Even to say there is a resurrection of a living soul is a 
 contradiction. It would be a lifting up, but not a resur- 
 rection, certainly not a resurrection of the dead. When 
 Christ spoke of raising the temple, he did not speak of 
 the temple of his body, as my friend tries to make it ap- 
 pear, but of the body itself. 
 
 But he now says he did not say Christ's natural body 
 was not raised. He does not know, and, not knowing, he 
 cannot make any affirmation. Then he does not know 
 that the temple Christ spoke of was raised, meaning his 
 body, and he cannot make any affirmation as to that pre- 
 diction being fulfilled. The fact is, Christ's body was 
 raised, as the nail prints showed, and from that fact there 
 is no escape. 
 
 I am astonished that my friend insists that the pro- 
 noun "it" is an impersonal pronoun in the sentence, "It 
 is sown a natural body.'' It is not an impersonal pro- 
 noun, and nothing like one. "It/ 5 when an impersonal 
 pronoun, is used with impersonal verbs, or verbs that 
 have no forms of inflection to denote the first or second 
 persons at all, but are used only in the third person of 
 the singular number, and the pronoun merely helps the 
 
278 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 verb to express its action or being without reference to 
 any person. It rains, it snows, it blows, are examples. 
 In the sentence under discussion "it" is purely a per- 
 sonal pronoun, introducing the passive verb "is sown," 
 its antecedent being in the predicate. If the question be 
 asked, What is sown? the answer would be easy. ISTo 
 scholar would think of anything but the body as being 
 the correct answer. If I understand my friend, his po- 
 sition is that the living spirit is sown into a body here 
 in this life state, and there will be a raising up of that 
 spirit into a new body at death. The sowing, he seems 
 to think, is the planting of a living germ in the human 
 body here. But that the sowing here meant is the going 
 down into literal death is proved by Paul's reference to 
 Christ's death, burial and resurrection. He did not as- 
 sert that Christ was planted in a human body and raised 
 from that body, but that the Christ that was buried in 
 death was raised from the dead. This was a literal 
 death, burial and resurrection. As to God giving "it" a 
 body as it pleased him, and to every seed its own body, 
 that refers to the planting of the seed in the ground, 
 which is not a proper illustration of the resurrection, as 
 the apostle shows. Look at that figure. Is it a good 
 figure even of my friend's idea of the planting and resur- 
 rection? The seed is planted, a stalk rises and stands, 
 on which the identical kind of seed grows that was 
 planted. If it is a grain of corn, then grains of corn are 
 produced just like the parent grain. It is clear that the 
 illustration does not fit his theory. 
 
 My opponent asks for a lesson in Greek. He is doubt- 
 ful about axon being a compound of two words which 
 mean always being. All right, Brother Hughes.- Here 
 
ME. DAILY S FIFTH SPEECH. 279 
 
 is the lesson; see if you can learn it. Aei (pronounced 
 ah-eye) signifies continued duration as expressed by 
 a trays or ever. On, present participle of the verb eimi 
 (pronounced i-mee), being. These combined form the 
 word aion, from which the adjective aionios is derived. 
 See? The real signification of these words is, therefore, 
 perpetual being, being without end. This fact lias been 
 fully demonstrated by the large number of passages re- 
 ferred to by me where these words are applied to the 
 existence of God and the duration of the joys of the 
 righteous. 
 
 He made a play on the plural form of the word aion, 
 as signifying ages of ages, and tried to establish the point 
 that it necessarily means in such cases a very long time, 
 but surely limited. A mere tyro in philology knows that 
 the singular and plural of nouns are often employed to 
 designate one and the same thing. In regard to the 
 plural noun aiones, it imports no more than the singular 
 aion. As to the phrase aiones aionon, ages of ages, it is a 
 mere intensive form of expression; as, holy of holies, 
 heaven of heavens, etc. Forever in English expresses 
 endless duration unless used in its restricted sense; so 
 we may say forever and ever, not to add to the duration 
 expressed, but to intensify the idea and render it em- 
 phatic. His criticism is not built on any usus loquendi 
 of Hebrew, Greek, or English language. 
 
 It is admitted that aion sometimes means an age in 
 the sense of dispensation. It is also sometimes used to 
 mean world: also present world and future world, when 
 qualified by words that show it to refer to the one or the 
 other. But when the term applies to duration, especially 
 in the future world, there is no place in the Xew Testa- 
 
28o SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 ment where it designates a limited period. The adjective 
 aionios is correctly defined by the learned Moses Stuart, 
 perpetual, never-ending, eternal. The same critical 
 scholar defines axon, an indefinite period of time; time 
 without limitation; ever, forever, time without end, 
 eternity. Lidell & Scott gives it as meaning a long space 
 of time, eternity. This same authentic work says of 
 aionios, lasting, eternal. With this, Parkhurst, who 
 gives the special New Testament use, agrees. James 
 Strong, S. T. D., LL. D., in his Exhaustive Concordance, 
 agrees with these other noted authors. 
 
 My opponent says the term eternal life, when found in 
 the New Testament, means the life of the Christian, 
 signifying the kind of life and not the duration of that 
 life. I expected this, and told my friends so this morn- 
 ing. He argues that this life is a mere knowledge of 
 God and Christ, basing his argument mainly on John 
 xvii. 3. The teaching of that passage is that eternal life 
 is evidenced by the knowledge. Any one knows that 
 knowledge is not life of any kind. This life is called 
 everlasting as well as eternal, and the same word is ap- 
 plied to the house which is eternal in the heavens. This 
 is a poor dodge. Eternal life simply means life without 
 end, just as the term "King eternal" signifies that he 
 will endure forever. The definitions he gave to show 
 that the word eternal expresses duration independent of 
 all time relations, not temporal, etc., is no proof of its 
 being without the idea of duration. Eternity is not 
 measured, but it is duration. 
 
 A finite being may be under an infinite obligation to 
 obey the holy law. Man is declared to be not subject to 
 the law of God, and cannot be, in his carnal or unchanged 
 
MR. DA.'LYS FIFTH SPEECH. 1281 
 
 state, and it is asserted that lie cannot please God in that 
 condition. Bom. viii. ?, 8. Yet the obligation rests 
 upon him. His inability being of a moral nature affords 
 him no excuse. As sin is an offense committed against 
 an infinite being, it is necessarily infinite in its moral 
 turpitude. 
 
 Paul's hope toward God was that he would be among 
 the just in the resurrection, when both the just and un- 
 just would be raised. Knowing that such a resurrection 
 would occur, he had the hope of being among the just. 
 This is the hope of all Christians. 
 
 I proved a contrast between the righteous and the 
 wicked here and at death by many passages, which can- 
 not be set aside or shown to prove the contrary. I did 
 not assume that some would remain unjust till the resur- 
 rection. I proved they would in proving there would be 
 a resurrection both of the just and the unjust. As this 
 is true, some will be unjust at the resurrection. Thus 
 no change will take place between death and the resur- 
 rection. This is the only period claimed by my opponent 
 when a change can take place in those who pass from 
 this life in an unjust state, for it was in the future 
 world and to the unjust before the resurrection that he 
 argued Jesus went and preached for their reformation. 
 
 T proved a future and general judgment, and that this 
 judgment was after death. "It is appointed unto men 
 once to die, but after this the judgment." So the judg- 
 ment is after men, all men, die. This is "the day when 
 God shall judge the secrets of men," for which reason he 
 will "reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be 
 punished.'* In view of this day of "judgment to come," 
 Felix trembled. 
 
282 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 Argument X. My next argument in direct proof of 
 my proposition is based upon the fact that there is re- 
 vealed in the scriptures a place of punishment in the 
 future world. I need not dwell on this, for he has ad- 
 mitted it in saying that the unjust spirits enter the 
 future world and suffer punishment there. As they 
 suffer punishment, there is a place where they suffer it, 
 for there can he no suffering without a place to suffer. 
 He may call this place of punishment what he pleases; 
 he may call it hades, sheol, gehenna, or any other term 
 he pleases; T purpose calling it hell. That there is a 
 place for the wicked to he punished in the future world 
 according to the TJniversalist creed has been shown by 
 Mr. Hughes, who is one of the best authorities in that 
 church. But I do not take his word always, for he bases 
 a great many things on assumptions. T intend to prove 
 there is a place of punishment in the future world by a 
 better authority than he is, and that is the Bible. 
 
 The terms employed to designate this place of punish- 
 ment are sheol, hades, gehenna and tartarus. 
 
 Sheol is a Hebrew word, and corresponds to the ({reek 
 word hades. I am free to admit that the words sheol 
 and hades were sometimes used to designate the grave 
 and death, but I propose to prove that they were also 
 employed to represent a place of punishment. 
 
 Grove's Greek Dictionary : ''Hades, the invisible 
 world of spirits, the unseen place "of the dead generally, 
 but vulgarly a place of torment, the abode of the damned, 
 hell." This scholarly authority is good, but the Bible is 
 far better, and to its infallible testimony I invite your 
 attention. Ps. ix. 17 : "The wicked shall be turned into 
 hell, and all the nations that forget God," It is sheer 
 
mr. daily's fifth speech. 283 
 
 fully to attempt to explain this as meaning that they 
 will enter the abode of the dead merely, for the righteous 
 enter the same. Slieol can here mean nothing less than 
 a place of punishment. Any effort to explain this away 
 is only the rain trick of sophistry. Prov. xv. 24 : "The 
 way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from 
 hell beneath." Depart is from the Hebrew soor, which 
 means to turn. Sheol here cannot mean the grave or 
 state of the dead in general/ for the righteous will enter 
 that just as the wicked do. and there can be no departing 
 from it on the part of any one. To say it means anything 
 but a place of punishment would destroy the antithesis 
 and do violence to the passage. Ps. !v. 15: "Let death 
 seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: 
 for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them." 
 Death is from the Hebrew mavpfli . and means the place 
 or state of the dead. Slieol, therefore, cannot mean that 
 in this text. David did not mean for them simply to be 
 killed and taken to heaven because they were too wicked 
 to live here. Tf he had been a Hniversalist he would 
 have meant for them to be taken to heaven, because they 
 were too wicked for him to manage. Prov. v. 4, 5 : "But 
 her end is bittei as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged 
 sword. Her feet go down to death, her steps take hold 
 on hell/* Here we have the words death and hell in the 
 same passage, from maveth and sheol. . Solomon, in 
 warning against the strange woman, follows her to death 
 and proceeds on to hell, declaring her end to be bitter as 
 wormwood and sharp as a two-edged sword. Universal- 
 ists dispute with Solomon, and declare there is no hell, 
 and that the end of the profligate will be as sweet as the 
 virtuous, Solomon was a wise man, but surely wisdom 
 
284 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 will die with Universalists ! 
 
 I will now consider the use of hades and gehenna in 
 the New Testament. Dead and death are not translated 
 from hades. Grave is translated from it only once. Luke 
 xvi. 22, 23 : "And it came to pass that the beggar died, 
 and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom; 
 the rich man died also and was buried; and in hell he 
 lifted up his eyes being in torments.'' This hades could 
 not have been the literal grave, for the eyes of the bodies 
 in the grave are not open. It teaches there is a place of 
 punishment after death. 
 
 Rev. xx.: "13. And the sea gave up the dead which 
 were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which 
 were in them: and they were judged every man according 
 to their works. 
 
 "14. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. 
 This is the second death. 
 
 "15. And whosoever was not found written in the book, 
 of life was cast into the lake of fire." 
 
 An important distinction is made in this text between 
 death, the state of the body and hell, the state of the 
 soul. Death delivers up its dead, that is, the bodies 
 are brought from a state of death by the resurrection, 
 and hell (hades) delivers up its dead, the place of 
 separate spirits in which the souls of the wicked 
 have been held, delivers up those souls to be 
 reunited with the bodies and receive their final doom. 
 Then death and hell, that is, the bodies that have been 
 held by death and the souls that have been kept in hades, 
 shall be cast into a lake of fire which is the second death. 
 This proves there is a place of punishment known by the 
 term hades after death. 
 
 The word most used in the New Testament to desig- 
 
MR. daily's FIFTH SPEECH. *&5 
 
 nate a place of future punishment is gehenna. This term 
 originally meant the valley of Hinnom, a place near the 
 city of Jerusalem, where children were once cruelly sac- 
 rificed to Moloch, the idol of the Amorites. It was after- 
 wards held in horror and abomination, and was used as 
 a place to cast carcasses of dead animals and malefactors, 
 which were consumed by fire constantly kept up. As in 
 process of time this place came to be considered as an 
 emblem of hell, the term gehenna is frequently employed 
 in the New Testament to designate a place of punish- 
 ment reserved for the wicked in the future state. The 
 fact is, it is never used in any other sense. In Liddell 
 and Scott's Lexicon it is defined as a place of everlasting 
 punishment, hell- fire, hell. In Grove's Greek Dictionary 
 it is defined : Hell, hell- fire, the torments of hell. 
 
 Matt, xxiii. 33: "Ye generation of vipers, how can ye 
 escape the damnation of hell?" 
 
 Damnation of hell Kriseos tes gehennes. Krises — 
 judgment, condemnation, final punishment. This text 
 teaches that the place where this punishment is inflicted 
 is hell or gehenna. 
 
 Luke xii.: "4. And I say unto you, my friends, Be not 
 afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no 
 more that they can do. 
 
 "5. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear 
 him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into 
 hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." 
 
 Matt, x.: "28. And fear not them which kill the body, 
 but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which 
 is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 
 
 Here we have the destruction of the soul distinguished 
 from the death of the body, and the place of punishment 
 distinguished from the grave. Gehenna here cannot 
 mean the valley of Hinnom, for any man who could kill 
 
286 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 the body as easily cast it into that valley. Both soul 
 and body are spoken of as cast into hell. This casting 
 into hell is after death. 
 
 i. The hell here mentioned is entered after death. 
 2. This hell cannot be the grave, for those who kill the 
 body have power to bury it, 3. This hell is not the 
 literal valley of Hinnom, for they had power to cast the 
 bpdy there. 4. The Roman power is not meant, for 
 that power could only kill the body. The only conclu- 
 sion is that the hell mentioned is a place of punishment 
 after death. 
 
 1 am compelled to omit matter that 1 would like to 
 use, for want of time. My friend would have us believe 
 there is no such place as a hell of punishment that the 
 Bible says so much about. He tries to persuade man- 
 kind that they need not worry about that, that they can 
 do anything or live any way and finally be as happy in 
 heaven as the most devout. My friends, do not be de- 
 ceived. They who live a life of sin and rebellion, dying 
 in the love. and practice of sin, will finally reach a place 
 of punishment in the future world. As sure as Jesus 
 was not a deceiver in his teaching, there is a place into 
 which the finally wicked will be cast, both soul and body. 
 The unjust will be raised as well as the just, and will be 
 cast into hell. This is the fate of those whose names are 
 not written in the Lamb's book of life. All who love the 
 Lord and love holiness and desire to live in the service 
 of God have their names written there. 
 
 (Time expired.) 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIFTH REPLY 287 
 
 ME. HUGHES' FIFTH REPLY. 
 
 » 
 
 Respected Auditors — It is not necessary for me to 
 go over again all that talk about Lazarus' bod}' . Suffice 
 it to say that I have challenged Brother Daily to show a 
 single instance where the phrase "the dead" means dead 
 bodies in the graves, and he has not cited a single in- 
 stance where that phrase so means. And it is important 
 for him to find such a case and establish that as its gen- 
 eral meaning, for the whole question turns on the phrase, 
 "the resurrection of the dead/"' and we find that the 
 dead are raised from Hades; and all my friend's chop 
 logic won't save him here. The case of Lazarus was a 
 special one, one has nothing to do with the final resur- 
 rection. 
 
 He says he has asserted that Christ's body was raised 
 from the tomb, and has proved it over and over again. 
 He is very profuse in his assertions, but always lacking 
 in proof. My position is that I do not know what dis- 
 posal was made of Christ's body, but that his real resur- 
 rection was from Hades, and this I proved from both 
 Peter and Paul, whose testimony Mr. Daily continu- 
 ously slights. • Paul did not say that Christ's body was 
 raised from the tomb, but from Hades. "Who shall de- 
 scend into the deep {Hades) that is to bring Christ up 
 from the dead/' Rom. x. 7. 
 
 Again, he affirms that the prints of the nails prove the 
 resurrection of Christ's body. My reply is, and has been, 
 that he manifested himself in that form, just as he did 
 in all those other forms in which his disciples did not 
 
288 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 recognize him till he made himself known to them, and 
 in which there was no showing of his wounds. But what 
 is most astounding is the fact that Mr. Daily's proposi- 
 tion affirms that resurrection bodies are in a '"spiritual 
 state," and now, without a word of explanation, he con- 
 tradicts himself, and contends that Jesus' body was 
 raised in a natural state with the wounds in his side, and 
 hands, and feet ! This shows desperation on his part. 
 
 I have. neither said nor intimated that the living spirit 
 is sown into a body here, nor the planting of a living 
 germ in the human body. It is the man that is sown, as 
 the grain is sown. The man will be man in the resurrec- 
 tion, soul and body, but with a spiritual body. For 
 "thou sowest not that body which shall be." He will be 
 "clothed upon with his house from heaven." II Cor. v. 
 2. St. Paul evidently thinks the sowing of grain a good 
 illustration of the resurrection, for that is his illustra- 
 tion. But he does not make his illustration run on all 
 fours, but the point or points of illustration only. So 
 just as surely as men do not sow dead grain, so man's 
 sowing is before death, and to make the "going down 
 into death the sowing," is absurd, and is also the giving 
 up the sowing to be the burial in the grave, which was 
 Brother Daily's first contention. God giveth "it a body" 
 cannot mean by any possibility God giveth the body a 
 body, and no antecedent can be found for the pronoun it. 
 There is none, and it is impersonal, whatever my friend 
 may say concerning it. 
 
 Brother Daily's "lesson in Greek" is quite pretentious, 
 and savors not a little of pedantry. But in all he said 
 he did not even attempt to prove that the word aion is 
 derived from aei on, and that was what he was called 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIFTH RKPI.Y. 289 
 
 w r^« . .: 
 upon to do, and that is what I deny. Where is his au- 
 thority? Mere buncombe does not pass in this debate. 
 Dr. Schaff, author of Church History, translator of 
 Lange's Commentary, and of the highest authority, says : 
 "Aion probably comes from ao aeemi, to breathe, to 
 blow, hence life, generation, age (like Latin aeoum) ; 
 then indefinitely for endless duration, eternity." Lange's 
 Com. Matt. xxv. 46. It will be seen here that Dr. Schaff 
 does not bear out my learned friend in his "lesson in 
 Greek," and that he consistently gives as the first and 
 natural meaning of the word aion to be life, generation, 
 age. 
 
 Prof. Tayler Lewis says of aion that whenever the 
 word means eternity, "it is the subject to which it is ap- 
 plied that forces to this, not any etymological necessity 
 in the word itself." So my friend best try another lesson 
 in Greek, for both these great authors disagree with him. 
 But he admits that the word aion sometimes means age. 
 He could not well avoid a fact so evident. The first 
 meaning given by the great majority of lexicographers is 
 life, age, dispensation; and it is absurd to contend that 
 they believed with Mr. Daily in the derivation of aion, 
 and that its natural meaning is eternity. Common sense 
 requires some things. 
 
 The word aion is in the plural and rendered world 
 and ages in the following passages: "Upon whom the 
 ends of the world are come." I Cor. x. 11. "But now 
 once in the end of the world hath he appeared, to put 
 away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. ix. 26. 
 "That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding 
 riches of his grace." Eph. ii. 7. "Even the mystery 
 which hath been hid from ages and generations, but now 
 
290 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 is made manifest to his saints." Col. i. 26. In all these 
 passages the word axon is rendered ages in the Revised 
 Version. These show conclusively that the word is used 
 in Scripture in the sense of age, and as there are many 
 ages, so, also, in the plural number. Age succeeds age. 
 and so many ages comprehend more time than one age. 
 and so the use of the phrase axons of axons, ages of ages, 
 to raise the conception to periods of time which compre- 
 hend more than one age or period. This is the way thai 
 Liddell and Scott explain the rise of the use of the 
 phrase "ages of ages," and occasions those words from 
 Eotherham in his Emphasized New Testament: "It is 
 true that axon does not of itself mean absolute eternity. . 
 otherwise it would not submit to be multiplied by itself, 
 as in the familiar phrase, axons of axons, which would 
 then be equivalent to 'eternities of eternities;' and it is 
 further true that in the history of divine revelation, axon 
 sometimes puts dispensations! limit upon itself, so far as 
 that the dawn of a new axon or 'age* serves to close and 
 exclude an old axon or age." This explanation and these 
 authorities exclude friend Daily's attempted explanation 
 of the plurals and reduplications of axon being only for 
 emphasis. 
 
 Mr. Daily is unfair, to say the least, in his reference to 
 Liddell and Scott's definition of axon. They once used 
 the word eternity to define that word, but in the seventh 
 and last edition of their lexicon they have repudiated it, 
 and the word eternity no longer occurs in their defini- 
 tion. And my friend knows this, because I have so in- 
 formed him. I wish now to also inform^ him that that 
 lexicon no longer defines Gehenna as a place of "ever- 
 lasting punishment, hellfire, hell," but "the valley of 
 
MR. HUGHES FIFTH RFPI^Y. 2QI 
 
 Hinnom, which represents the place of future punish- 
 ment/' only. 
 
 As to the infinite moral turpitude of sin, his "argu- 
 ment/' in the first place, was but a lot of assertions, with 
 no proof whatever, and what he now says is no better. 
 I hold that I completely" riddled those assertions so that 
 he could do* no more than repeat what he said before. I 
 supposed when I came here I was to be confronted with 
 strong arguments, and not by mere assertions, repeated 
 over and over again. Will he tell us how a finite being 
 can be under an infinite obligation ? And will he reveal 
 the profound secret of how it is a man is under obliga- 
 tion to obey a law he does not understand, and which 
 he has not the moral ability to obey? There is no hu- 
 man government of that kind, and .to assert that such is 
 the divine government is a slander on Almighty Glod. 
 His doctrine that sin is infinite is contrary to Scripture, 
 which teaches the doctrine of rewarding according to 
 works, and the principle of degrees in guilt and punish- 
 ment, /'That servant which knew his Lord's will, and 
 prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, 
 shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew 
 not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be 
 beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is 
 given, of him shall much be required." Luke xii. 47, 48. 
 
 Speaking of Paul's "hope towards God that there 
 should be a resurrection of both the just and. the unjust," 
 comes down with my friend to the poor and pitiable 
 thing that his hope was no more than that he should be 
 
292 SKCOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 among the just ! ! But this passage has been Brother 
 Daily's chief reliance to prove a universal resurrection, 
 for Paul hoped for the resurrection "both of the just and 
 the unjust," and he says not a word about his place in 
 the resurrection. But all at once my friend discovers 
 that this passage proves too much for him, and he must 
 let go of it in some way, and he stops not to belittle St. 
 Paul's hope into a merely selfish one for himself alone. 
 Paul did not say there would be such a universal resur- 
 rection, but that he had hope towards God that there 
 would be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust. 
 And he had too large a heart to hope that any would be 
 raised unjust and to eternal perdition. Paul's hope is 
 expressed in these words: "As in Adam all die, even so 
 in Christ shall all be made alive/' And so my friend's 
 contrast does not extend to the resurrection. 
 
 I come now to my friend's Tenth Argument. He be- 
 gins by saying I have admitted that there will be a place 
 of suffering in the future world, for if there is suffering 
 there must be a place of suffering. That is very pro- 
 found, indeed ! But men suffer in this world, and they 
 may be in the very same place where other men are in en- 
 joyment, and the place have nothing to do with the suf- 
 fering. Surely not, if the suffering is moral or spiritual. 
 But my friend must maintain a place of punishment, 
 and he chooses to cail it hell. . Hell is a place, therefore, 
 and not a state or condition. Let us see how long we 
 can hold him there. You will remember, my friends, 
 that I tried to get Mr. Daily to tell us how spiritual 
 bodies were to be punished in the future state, and that 
 he absolutely refused to tell us. But now it comes out 
 that it is to be in a pluee, in a hell of fire. It is not 
 
MR. HUGHES FIFTH REPLY 293 
 
 moral, nor is it spiritual, and it can only be corporal. 
 And now I ask again, how can a spiritual or immaterial 
 body be burned with fire? This audience, as well as 
 myself, would like to have an answer. 
 
 But we have the rich man again, and we are told he as 
 yet had no body, that he was yet in the grave. He was a 
 spirit, and hell is a place, but how could a spirit be con- 
 fined in a place ? And yet he had a tongue, and craved a 
 drop of water, for he was tormented in the flame of that 
 hell. And all of this is history, according to my friend; 
 and on this history he is trying to prove endless punish- 
 ment for a large part of mankind. But how prove end- 
 less punishment from the word Hades and its corre- 
 sponding word. Sheol. which is to be destroyed? Alex- 
 ander Campbell says : "It would be supremely absurd, 
 and no scholar ever did affirm, that either Sheol or Hades 
 did necessarily signify endless misery; because Sheol or 
 Hades is to be destroyed.*" Thus speaks John: "Death 
 and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire." If it 
 is to be destroyed, it cannot be a place of endless punish- 
 ment. So far as the words Sheol and Hades are con- 
 cerned, I might leave them here, for they cannot mean 
 either a place or condition of endless punishment, nor 
 can they, as long as the word "'0 Sheol, I will be thy 
 destruction," stand in the Bible. Hosea xiii. 1.4. 
 
 Further, I wish to observe that to these words ren- 
 dered hell in the Bible there are no words of duration ap- 
 plied. "We never read of an everlasting hell, nor of any 
 one suffering in hell forever. Even to prove that hell is a 
 place of punishment is very far from proving that the 
 suffering is endless. Mr. Campbell also said of these 
 words, Sheol, Hades and Gehenna : "They are noun sub- 
 
294 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 stantives, and, if fairly rendered, cannot express both 
 the adjective endless and the substantive misery." I 
 quote from Campbell and Skinner debate, pp. 70, 71. It 
 is then absolutely impossible to prove endless punishment 
 by the word hell alone. 
 
 The only instance in which the word forever can even 
 inferentially refer to the word hell is in the case of 
 Jonah. But forever there means but three days and 
 nights. He says: "I went down to the bottom of the 
 mountains; the earth, with her bars, was about me for- 
 ever." "Out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heard- 
 est my voice." Jonah ii. 2, 6. But this is not the only 
 instance in which there has been deliverance from hell. 
 David says : "The sorrows of hell compassed me about ; 
 the snares of death prevented me. In my distress I 
 called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God; he heard 
 my voice out of his temple, and my cry came unto him." 
 Ps. xviii. 5, 6. Again : "The sorrows of death com- 
 passed me, and the pains of hell got hold upon me. I 
 found trouble and sorrow." Ps. cxvi. 3. Once more : 
 "Great is thy mercy towards me: and thou hast delivered 
 my soul from the lowest hell." Ps. Ixxxvi. 13. In all 
 these cases hell (sheol) means suffering in this life, and 
 from it was deliverance, even from the "lowest hell." 
 These are facts; they are this life's experiences, and their 
 testimony is contrary to my friend's inferences that Sheol 
 or Hades is a place- of endless punishment. 
 
 The first occurrence of the word hell in the Bible is in 
 Deut. xxxii. 22, and is the hell referred to in the parable 
 of the rich man and Lazarus. For when the rich man 
 asked that warning be sent to his brethren, that they 
 might not come into his place of torment, Abraham 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIFTH REPLY. 295 
 
 said : "Let them hear Moses and the Prophets." And 
 this is the only place where Moses uses the word hell 
 (sheol) as a symbol of punishment, and must hare been 
 the reference intended. That temporal punishment was 
 here meant, and of a national character, is perfectly evi- 
 dent. "For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall 
 burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth, 
 with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the 
 mountains." It was to be burnt with hunger; the teeth 
 of beasts was to be sent upon them, with the poison of the 
 serpents of the dust: and all classes were to be involved 
 in it. "the young man and the virgin, the suckling and 
 the man of gray hairs.-' This could be no description of 
 a future hell ; it is localized too plainly. 
 
 The noted passage. "The wicked shall be turned into 
 hell, and all the' nations that forget God" (Ps." ix. 17), 
 of which Brother Daily says, in his very courteous and 
 refined way. "Any effort to explain this away is only the 
 vain trick of sophistry" — of course, then, I must not at- 
 tempt to exp ] ain it away! But let us read the previous 
 verse : "The Lord is known by the judgment which he 
 executeth; the wicked is snared in the work of his own 
 hands," Honestly, now, Brother Daily, is the Lord 
 known by judgment which he executes here and now, or 
 by one which he will execute some time perhaps in the 
 far future ? Solomon says : "The righteous shall be 
 recompensed in the earth, much more the wicked and 
 the sinner." Prov. xi. 31. Is the wicked snared now in 
 the work of bis own hands, or is he to be in your great 
 judgment day. some thousands of years hence? "Yerily, 
 there is a reward for the righteous; verily, he is a God 
 that judgrth in the earth/' Ps. lviii. 11. And where is 
 
296 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 this hell into which the wicked is turned as the result 
 of being "snared in the work of his own hands ?" What 
 position did you take, or argument did you make, on this 
 text, other than to cast a slur upon your opponent ? Was 
 there a single word more ? 
 
 A sudden cutting off from the earth for sin is consid- 
 ered a punishment for sin, especially in the Old Testa- 
 ment, and is a turning into Sheol, as in the text, "Let 
 death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into 
 hell (Sheol) ." A life of proflgacy tended to death, and 
 consequently to Sheol, as in those texts cited by Brother 
 Daily. "The fear of the Lord prolongeth days; but the 
 years of the wicked shall be shortened." Pro v. x. 27. 
 "Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their 
 days." Ps. lv. 23. "Be not overmuch wicked, neither 
 be thou foolish : why shouldst thou die before thy time ?" 
 Eccl. vii. 27. 
 
 I call your attention, my friends, to four statements 
 made by Mr. Daily in his last speech : "That there is a 
 place for the wicked to be punished in the future world, 
 according to the Universalist creed, has been shown by 
 Mr. Hughes." 
 
 "If he (David) had been a Universalist, he would 
 have meant for them to be taken to heaven, because they 
 were too wicked for him to manage." 
 
 "Universalists dispute with Solomon, and declare 
 there is no hell, and that the end of the profligate will 
 be as sweet as the virtuous." 
 
 "My friend would have us believe there is no such 
 place as a hell of punishment, that the Bible says so 
 much about." 
 
 Now, in these four statements Brother Daily misrepre- 
 
MR. HUGHKS' FIFTH REPLY 297 
 
 sents me. and Universalists, in one way or the other. 
 Either I believe in a place of future punishment, or I do 
 not; If I do, he misrepresents me. If I do not, he mis- 
 represents me. Has he done it designedly and mali- 
 ciously, or is he reckless, has lost his head, and strikes 
 out every way? If so, what right has he to pose as a 
 great debater, of learning and ability, having the cour- 
 tesy of a Christian gentleman? 
 
 As to the word Gehenna, rendered hell twelve times 
 in the New Testament, Brother Daily says rightly that 
 it originally meant the valley of Hinnom, afterwards 
 desecrated for the abomination committed there; that 
 afterwards it became the emblem of hell. To this I de- 
 mur, at least till two or three hundred years after Christ, 
 and altogether as to its meaning in the Bible. Associ- 
 ated with it came the idea of corruption, because of its 
 defilement from the filth and offal of the city of Jerusa- 
 lem. The filth bred worms, and to consume the offal 
 continual fires were kept up, from whence arose the 
 phrase, "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not 
 quenched." 
 
 The fires of Gehenna do not signify severe punish- 
 ment, but purification, rather. Mark's expression, 
 "Every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice 
 shall be salted with salt," comes in connection with his 
 report of Christ's words concerning Gehenna, and con- 
 firms this. So Pres. E. Milligan remarks : "As every 
 sacrifice was seasoned with salt, the emblem of purity, 
 so also must every one be purified, though the process 
 may be as painful as passing through the fire." Analy- 
 sis of New Testament, Mark ix. 49. This takes away 
 the idea of vindictive punishment, and makes it impos- 
 
298 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 sible to use Gehenna as an emblem of endless punish- 
 ment. 
 
 Its general symbolic use is for a national punishment 
 of the Jewish people for their rejection of the Messiah. 
 It was only spoken of to the Jews, and no Gentile was 
 ever threatened with Gehenna punishment. The prophet 
 Jeremiah uses it effectively in his nineteenth chapter as 
 a symbol of the destruction of Jerusalem, and their cap- 
 tivity in Babylon. He was commanded to take an earth- 
 en bottle, to go into the valley of the Son of Hinnom. 
 and to prophesy to the people, and say: "I will bring 
 evil upon this place, the whichsoever heareth his ears 
 shall tingle." And that it should be called the valley 
 of slaughter, and that their carcasses should be meat for 
 the fowls of the air and the beasts of the earth : that the 
 city should be made desolate and a hissing, and that they 
 should eat the flesh of their sons and daughters in the 
 straitness of the siege that should come upon them ; and 
 that he should break the bottle, and gay, "So shall I 
 break this people, and they shall bury in Tophet till 
 there be no place to bury." 
 
 In the same way Jesus denounces the Jewish people of 
 his day, and cries against them, "Ye serpents, ye gen- 
 eration of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of 
 hell (judgment of Gehenna) ? Wherefore, behold, I 
 send unto you prophets, and wise men. and scribes; and 
 some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and 
 persecute them from city to city: That upon you may 
 come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from 
 the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zachaiias, 
 son of Baraehias, whom ye slew between the temple and 
 the altar. Verily, I say unto you, all these things shall 
 
MR. HUGHES' FIFTH REPLY 299 
 
 come upon this generation." Matt, xxiii. 33-36. Let it 
 be marked here that this was not a hell, a place to which 
 they were going, but to come upon them, and that before 
 that generation should pass away. 
 
 The destruction of both soul and body in Gehenna, lit- 
 erally so, would be annihilation, and is as much against 
 endless punishment as against universal salvation, and 
 it is strange he should quote, as he does, without ex- 
 planation. Sure it is there is not a word in it favorable 
 to the doctrine of endless punishment. It seems to de- 
 note complete temporal destruction of a national char- 
 acter. It is similar in figure and expression to the pas- 
 sage in Isa. x. 17, 18 : "And the light of Israel shall be 
 for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame; and it shall 
 burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day, 
 and shall consume the glory of his forests, and his fruit- 
 ful field, both soul and body." This concerns the de- 
 struction of the enemies of Israel, but it is complete, as 
 indicated by the phrase "soul and body" but has no ref- 
 erence to the future state. 
 
 Mr. Daily so far has utterly neglected his proposition 
 of endless punishment, and has been discussing future 
 punishment. If he . is correct in saying that "Mr. 
 Hughes has shown that the Universalist creed teaches 
 future punishment/" why is he spending all his time in 
 proving what is not disputed ? Perhaps he wants it to be 
 understood he can prove something, if he cannot prove 
 his proposition. Maybe, in his next speech, he will bring 
 forth his proofs directly to the point, and to the real 
 question. Better had he done so before, and more time 
 could have been devoted to the texts that apply terms of 
 duration to punishment. And he could do something 
 
300 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 more than merely quote texts without comment, or tak- 
 ing positions upon them. That would be delate, and 
 more instructive to our auditors. 
 {Time expired.) 
 
 ME. DAILY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audience, 
 
 Worthy Opponent — I appreciate the increased interest 
 the people have taken in our discussion. It would have 
 been well if all who are here this afternoon had been 
 here the first day and eVery session of the discussion. I 
 shall give some attention to our brother's remarks, made 
 in the last speech, before taking up my regular line of 
 argument. 
 
 He says the case of Lazarus is a special one, and has 
 nothing to do with the final resurrection. I proved by 
 the case of Lazarus that the dead means the dead body 
 in the grave., or in a state of death, wherever it may be. 
 I also proved this by the body of Christ being spoken 
 of as the dead. The dead spoken of in the Bible, when 
 the corporeally dead are meant, always refers to the dead 
 body, and never to the soul. The soul is living after the 
 separation from the body, and the body only is dead, and 
 it is sheer nonsense to say it is the living soul that is 
 meant, and not the dead body, when the term "the dead" 
 is employed. 
 
MR. DAILY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 301 
 
 It is strange that he continues to assert that Christ's 
 body was not raised from the dead. This can only be 
 accounted for on the ground that his case is a desperate 
 one, so he clings desperately to this hobby in the face of 
 all the plain declarations of the word of God. Proof 
 that Christ's body was raised means the destruction of 
 the whole fabrication of universalism, and my opponent 
 knows it. I think he is conscious that I have abundantly 
 proved that fact, but it is necessary for him to keep up 
 an appearance. He says "Paul did not say that Christ's 
 body was raised from the grave, but from Hades." Well, 
 this is an admission that Christ's body was raised, after 
 all. Evidently if it was raised from Hades, it was raised, 
 and if it was raised, it was raised from the grave, for 
 that was where it was laid. He quotes, as supposed 
 proof that Christ's body was not raised, after admitting 
 it was, the following : "Who shall descend into the deep 
 (Hades) ? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the 
 dead.)'' The word "deep" in this text is not from 
 Hades, but from ahusson, the meaning of which is abyss. 
 The abyss of death held the body of Christ, and not his 
 soul. While the body of Christ was held by the abyss 
 of death it was in the tomb. The angel plainly explained 
 the meaning of bringing up Christ from the dead when 
 he said, "He is not here, but is risen." Luke xxiv. 6. 
 The place referred to was the tomb which the disciples 
 had visited. That which, was not there was the body of 
 Christ, so the body of Christ was risen. 
 
 The wounds in the side, hands and feet of Christ show 
 that it was his body, the very one that was nailed to the 
 cross, that was raised from the dead. It was not now 
 subject to death any more, but was spiritualized. 
 
302 • SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 Though spiritualized, his body was not a spirit separate 
 and apart from the body that was nailed to the cross, for 
 he said, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I my- 
 self ; handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and 
 bones as ye see me have." ■ 
 
 He says he did not say that the living spirit was sown 
 into a body here, but that it is the man that is sown, the 
 man, both soul and body. Into what is the man sown as 
 the grain is sown? I understood him to say that man 
 was sown in this world before death. When Paul says, 
 "Thou sowest not that body which shall be," lie simply 
 criticises the illustration of seed sowing, for he proceeds 
 to show that in the resurrection the body sown is the one 
 that is resurrected. In saying '"'God givet]i it a body as 
 it hath pleased him," he speaks of the grain sown, lie 
 says no antecedent can be found for "It," but the apostle 
 says "and to every seed its own body." He gives the 
 antecedent in this sentence, and so the pronoun is not 
 impersonal. My friend would not have called the pro- 
 noun impersonal if he had not been hard pressed. Every 
 scholar knows it is not. 
 
 He calls my lesson in Greek on the word (don mere 
 buncombe. He is not able to show it to be incorrect, 
 and so all he can say is "buncombe." That is the very 
 best the poor fellow can do with the lesson, and so I am 
 not disposed to censure him for it. He quotes the opin- 
 ion of Dr. Schaff, who says the word is probably from 
 ao aemi, to breathe, to blow. How any one can get gen- 
 eration and age from breathe or blow, is strange. In- 
 stead of the word probably coming from any such root, 
 it is extremely improbable. I refer to Powers' work on 
 Universalism, page 273, to the Exhaustive Concordance 
 
mr. da;ly s sixth speech. 303 
 
 of the Bible, by James Strong, S. T. D., LL. D., to An- 
 thon's Greek Grammar, or any other standard Greek 
 grammar, as authority for the lesson I gave Mr. Hughes, 
 for which he seems so ungrateful. After all, Schaff gives 
 the meaning of a ion as endless duration, eternity. So 
 he supports my opinion, though he seems to think that 
 probably the word comes from a different Greek root. 
 
 He says aion is in the plural. He is wrong about that. 
 Aion is a singular substantive. The plural form is 
 aiones. 1 have already answered his effusion on the 
 meaning of the plural form of aion, showing it to be a 
 mere intensive form of expression, importing no more 
 than the singular. Aiones aionon, ages of ages, means 
 the same as aion, ever being, or being forever. Thus we 
 say "forever" to express endless duration, but may add 
 to that and say "forever and ever," not to express a 
 longer period of duration, but to emphasize and intensify 
 the idea. A mere tyro in philology ought to know that. 
 He says "common .-ense requires some things,'" and I 
 agree with him. Where he gets the phrase "aion of 
 aions'' is a mystery to me. He will yet convince us all 
 that he knows nothing about the Greek, I fear. 
 
 A finite being can be under an infinite obligation to 
 obey an infinite being, because that being is infinite. A 
 -in against such a being is infinite in its moral turpi- 
 tude, because it is against an infinite being. Beaten 
 with many or few stripes refers to the people of God and 
 his dealings with them under the parental government 
 here, and has no reference to the punishment due to sin 
 to be inflicted hereafter upon rebels who die in the love 
 and practice of sin. 
 
 I am sure that Paul's hope was to be among the just 
 
304 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 in the general resurrection mentioned. by him. He could 
 not have hoped to be among the unjust. Though Mr. 
 Hughes calls this a "j)oor and pitiable thing/ 7 it is an 
 unanswerable fact. My contrast does extend to the res- 
 urrection, for it is plainly stated that both the just and 
 unjust would be raised. The unjust, then will not be 
 made just at any time between death and the resurrec- 
 tion, and my friend has utterly failed to show that any 
 change will be made after that event. 
 
 He says there is place of punishment, but thinks the 
 wicked and righteous will all be mixed up together in 
 one place after death. Yet he has argued that the 
 righteous will be resurrected to immortality and glory, 
 while the wicked will have to pass through a kind of 
 purgatory till they repent and believe, after which they 
 will be raised, too. Evidently "the legs of the lame are 
 not equal." 
 
 In my last speech I made an argument in which I ex- 
 plained what was meant by the casting of death and hell 
 into the lake of fire, which has not been touched by all 
 my friend has said about the destruction of death and 
 hell. That hell is used sometimes to represent trials and 
 sufferings here is not questioned, but that has nothing 
 whaterer to do with my arguments on the place of pun- 
 ishment. Mr. Hughes ignores those arguments, and pre- 
 fers to spend his time on matters that do not have any 
 reference to them. He is safer to keep away from the 
 arguments. 
 
 All he says about being recompensed in the earth goes 
 for nothing in the face of the fact that he has taken the 
 position that the finally wicked will also be recompensed 
 in the world to come. In the discussion of his proposi- 
 
MR. DAILY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 305 
 
 tion it will be remembered that he utterly failed to show 
 there would be any change in this class after death. His 
 failure in that renders him rather desperate in the dis- 
 cussion of this proposition. 
 
 After pronouncing the woe upon the wicked Scribes 
 and Pharisees, who were hypocrites, saying, "How shall 
 ye escape the damnation of hell" (gehenna), Christ 
 threatens the Jewish nation with a special destruction. 
 This is no proof that the hell spoken of meant the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem. Only those having a weak cause 
 will resort to such subterfuge. The Jews believed in a 
 future punishment in hell. Jesus thus teaches the truth- 
 fulness of that by denouncing the Scribes and Pharisees 
 and pronouncing this woe upon them. Dr. Gill informs 
 us that the phrase "damnation of hell'" was often used 
 by the Jews in their Talmud and Midi ashes, by which 
 they meant future torment. Jesus would have corrected 
 this had it been erroneous, but instead of doing that he 
 used the phrase in the same way himself. This is unmis- 
 takable proof of the truthfulness of the doctrine. No- 
 where did Jesus say there was no such place as future 
 punishment in helJ, but on the contrary he taught 
 there is. 
 
 To refer the statement, "Fear him which is able to de- 
 stroy both soul and body in hell,' 7 to the destruction of 
 Jerusalem is too ridiculous to really demand notice. 
 How could the soul and body both be destroyed in that 
 calamity? My friend argues this destruction means an- 
 nihilation, so I suppose he thinks the souls and bodies of 
 all the Jews who were besieged in Jerusalem were anni- 
 hilated. Then how about all being finally holy and 
 happy in heaven? His argument refutes itself. The 
 
3°6 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 word destroy is from the same Greek word as perish, in 
 Eom. ii. 12: "For as many as have sinned without law 
 shall also perish without law." That this does not mean 
 annihilation is plain from the eighth verse : "But unto 
 them that be contentious, and do not obey the truth, but 
 obey unrighteousness, (he will render) indignation and 
 wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every son! of man 
 that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile." 
 This shows that the words perish or destroy, which arc 
 translated from the same Greek Avoid, do not mean an- 
 nihilation, but signify a state of tribulation and anguish, 
 indignation and wrath. So this Greek word in the text, 
 "But rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and 
 body in hell," signifies a plunging of both soul and body 
 into a state of indignation and wrath, tribulation and an- 
 guish, after the death of the body. The fact that it is 
 after the death of the body shows that the destruction of 
 Jerusalem cannot be meant. 
 
 Argument XL My next argument is that the wicked 
 are sent away or doomed to punishment at the same time 
 that the righteous are blessed with future felicity. 
 
 Matt. vi. 38-43. 
 
 "38. The field is the world; the good seed are the chil- 
 dren of the Kingdom; but the tares are the children of 
 the wicked one; 
 
 "39. The enemy that sowed them is the Devil; the 
 harvest is the end of the world; and the. reapers are the 
 angels. 
 
 "40. As, therefore, the. tares are gathered and burned 
 in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world. 
 
 "41. The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and 
 they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, 
 and them which do iniquity; 
 
 "42. And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there 
 
MR. DAILY S SIXTH SPKECH. 307 
 
 shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 
 
 "43. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in 
 the Kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let 
 him hear." 
 
 The end of the world can mean nothing more or less 
 than the end of time. The gospel dispensation had al- 
 ready been ushered in. 
 
 II Thess. i. 6-10. 
 
 "6. Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recom- 
 pense tribulation to them that trouble you; 
 
 "7. And to you who are troubled, rest with us, when 
 the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with his 
 mighty angels ; 
 
 "8. In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know 
 not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ: 
 
 "9. Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction 
 from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
 power ; 
 
 "10. When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, 
 and to be admired in all them that believe (because our 
 testimony among you was believed) in that day." 
 
 This cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem try 
 Titus, for it was addressed to a Gentile city, that could 
 not possibly be affected by that calamity. 
 
 Having proved that there is a place of punishment in 
 the future world, and that the wicked will be consigned 
 to that place at the same time that the righteous are 
 blessed with endless felicity, I advance to my twelfth ar- 
 gument. 
 
 •Argoiext XII. My twelfth argument is that the fu- 
 ture punishment of the wicked is represented in the 
 Scriptures as their end. An important question is asked 
 in I Peter iv. 17 : "What shall the end be of them that 
 obev not the gospel of God?" Eeference is had in this 
 
308 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 question to those who despise the gospel, with enmity in 
 their herats toward God. David was puzzled about their 
 end till he went into the sanctuary of God. There lie 
 learned it. 
 
 Ps. lxxiii. 12-20. 
 
 "12. Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the 
 world; they increase in riches. 
 
 "13. Verily, I have cleansed my heart in vain, and 
 washed my hands in innocency. 
 
 "14. For all the day long have I been plagued, and 
 chastened every morning. 
 
 "15. If I say, I will speak thus; behold, I should offend 
 against the generation of thy children. 
 
 "16. When I thought to know this, it was too painful 
 for me; 
 
 "17. Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then un- 
 derstood I their end. 
 
 "18. Surely, tbou didst set them in slippery places: 
 thou castedst them down into destruction. 
 
 "19. How are they brought into desolation, as in a 
 moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. 
 
 "20, As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when 
 thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image." 
 
 No wonder Balaam, in poetic strains, said, "Let mo die 
 the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like 
 his." If universalism were true, the end of the wicked 
 would be as desirable as the end of the righteous, for the 
 end of both, especially the last end. would be the same. 
 
 Rom. vi. 21, 22. 
 
 "21. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye 
 are now ashamed? for the end of these things is death. 
 
 "22. But now, being made free from sin, and become 
 servants to God % ye have your fruit unto holiness and the 
 end everlasting life." 
 
 Since this is the end of the ungodly, it is their final 
 state. 
 
mr. daily's sixth speech. 309 
 
 As death is here opposed to life, and as temporal 
 death is the end of the most godly in the time state, it 
 is clearly absurd to restrict the meaning of the word 
 death here to the temporal death of the body. It fol- 
 lows that the end of a sinful life persistently followed 
 here is death in antithesis to everlasting life. Accord- 
 ing to Universalism, sin leads to punishment, punish- 
 ment leads to reformation, and reformation leads to 
 everlasting life. To teach that doctrine Paul would 
 have to say, "The end of those things is life." 
 
 Phill. iii. 18, 19: 
 
 18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and 
 now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the 
 cross of Christ; 
 
 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, 
 and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly 
 things. ) 
 
 • Universal isni would say, oh, no; they will surfer de- 
 struction temporarily, hut their end will be salvation the 
 same as the righteous. 
 Heb. vi. 7-9: 
 
 7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh 
 oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by 
 whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 
 
 8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, 
 and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. 
 
 9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, 
 and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. 
 
 Some are represented here as bearing thorns and 
 briers. Tt is declared that their end is to be burned. 
 Paul is persuaded better things of others, things that ac- 
 company salvation. Will the state of burning be the end 
 of any ? What do you say, Brother Hughes ? If you say 
 it will not, you contradict the word of God. If you say 
 
3IO SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 it will, you yield the point and admit your defeat. If 
 you say nothing about it, the audience will know you are 
 afraid to commit yourself one way or the other. 
 
 Argument XIII. My thirteenth argument is that the 
 punishment of the wicked is their portion. 
 
 Ps. xi. 5, 6: 
 
 5 The Lord trieth the righteous : but the wicked, and him 
 that loveth violence, his soul hateth. 
 
 6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brim- 
 stones, and an horrible tempest: this shall he the portion of 
 their cup. 
 
 One's portion is that which is assigned him in the 
 final settlement of an estate. It is nowhere said that 
 the portion of the wicked is salvation or everlasting life. 
 It is plainly stated that suffering under snares, fire, and 
 brimstone, and an horrible tempest, is the portion or lot 
 of the wicked. 
 
 Argument XIV. My fourteenth and last arugment is 
 that it is clearly taught in the Bible not only that the 
 punishment of the wicked is their end and their portion, 
 but that it is eternal, to last forever, and therefore end- 
 less. 
 
 Matt. xxv. 31-41: 
 
 31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all 
 the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne 
 of his glory: 
 
 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he 
 shall separate them one from another, as a. shepherd divid- 
 eth his sheep from the goats: 
 
 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the 
 goats on the left. 
 
 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, 
 Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom pre- 
 pared for you from the foundation of the world: 
 
 $ * * * * * * 
 
MR. DAILY S SIXTH SPEECH. 31 1 
 
 41 Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart 
 from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the 
 devil and his angels. 
 
 I call your attention to two classes in this lesson, into 
 which the people are to he divided when all nations &re 
 gathered before him. There is no period or event in the 
 history of the race of mankind when all nations will he 
 gathered before God but the final gathering of all the 
 human race together. There will then he a separation 
 of the two classes one from the other, and the Lord will 
 say to those on the left hand, "Depart from me, ye 
 cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and 
 his angels." Pur to aionion — fire the everlasting. This 
 is not a mistranslation. The Greek word expresses the 
 endless duration of God's existence, the endless duration 
 of the happiness of the righteous, and by no rule of lan- 
 guage can it he construed to express anything else than 
 the final and endless punishment of the wicked. To ex- 
 plain away such a plain passage would authorize one to 
 explain away every passage that re ] ates to God's con- 
 tinued existence, and the durability of the joys of the 
 righteous, and would he a long stride in the road of in- 
 fidelity. 
 
 Matt, xviii. 8: It is better for thee to enter into life halt 
 or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be 
 cast into everlasting fire. 
 
 In this passage the phrase pur to aionion (fire the 
 everlasting) is found, which is correctly translated in 
 our common version. 
 
 Matt. xxv. 46: And these shall go away into everlasting 
 punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 
 
 Everlasting punishment is from kolasin aionion (Jco- 
 lasma, chastisement, punishment). Life eternal is from 
 
312 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 zoen aionion (zoe, life). Here life and punishment are 
 qualified by the very same expletive, making the dura- 
 tion of each to be the same. 
 
 Mark iii. 29: But he that shall blaspheme against the 
 Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eter- 
 nal damnation. 
 
 "Hath never forgiveness" is from ouk echei aphesin 
 eis ton aiona. This, literally rendered, is "not hath for- 
 giveness to the eternity." The word eternal in this text 
 is from aionion. If there had been no eternal damna- 
 tion, Christ would not have deceived us by using the 
 term. 
 
 II Thes. i. 9: Who shall be punished with everlasting 
 destruction from the presence of the Lord. 
 
 Heb. vi. 2: Of the resurrection of the dead and of eter- 
 nal judgment. 
 
 Jude xii. 7: Suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 
 
 All these passages simply indicate that the punish- 
 ment of the wicked will be as lasting as the existence of 
 God or the joys of the righteous. If God is to endure 
 forever as the sovereign ruler of the universe, and if the 
 teaching of the scriptures be true that our vile bodies 
 will be changed and fashioned like unto the glorious 
 body of our Saviour, when we shall see him as he is and 
 be like him, when that which we have been anticipating 
 will go on forever, just as sure as God will endure for- 
 ever and the happiness of the righteous will never end, 
 that sure will the punishment of the wicked be everlast- 
 ing as described by the same Greek word. 
 
 Time expired. 
 
MR. HUGHES SIXTH REPLY 313 
 
 ME. HUGHES' SIXTH EEPLY. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen — 
 Mr. Daily tells us that he proved by the case of Lazarus 
 "that the dead means the dead body in the grave, or in 
 the state of death, wherever that may be." Of course, 
 he does not mean to prevaricate; but he is very greatly 
 mistaken. The facts are, he engaged to prove the resur- 
 rection of the natural body in a spiritual state, and he 
 has endeavored to do so by the Bible teaching concerning 
 the "resurrection of the dead." But when challenged to 
 show a single case where the phrase "the dead" means 
 "dead bodies in the grave," he has never been able to pro- 
 duce a single text with that phrase in it with that mean- 
 ing. There are no such cases. Lazarus was not called 
 "the dead." He could not be. His was but a single, spe- 
 cial case, and "the dead" are a definite multitude, mean- 
 ing all the dead. The dead are dead to us; we call them 
 dead, but they are alive to God. "God is not a God of 
 the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him." Luke 
 xx. 38. He is a God of those dead to us, but not a God 
 of dead bodies in the grave. Of what avail is it, there- 
 fore, to contend that "'the dead" means dead bodies in 
 the graves, when Jesus, reason and common sense teach 
 so emphatically to the contrary. 
 
 But the "abyss is the abyss of death !" He starts out 
 with the idea of Christ's resurrection from the grave, but 
 now it is the "abyss of death!" My friend shows great 
 dexterity in shifting his ground when necessity demands 
 
314 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 it. Paul meant by the abyss Hades, just as Peter did 
 when he said, "He — Christ — was not left in Hades." 
 
 When contending that the very body nailed to the cross 
 was the one Jesus showed to Thomas, he runs athwart 
 the tremendous absurdity that a spiritual body, or, as he 
 explained it, an immaterial body, can have wounds in it ; 
 and as Jesus is the example, so all humanity will rise 
 with their wounds and deformities! Could desperation 
 go farther? 
 
 To make body the antecedent of the pronoun it, my 
 opponent is forced to make Paul criticise his own illsu- 
 tration of seed sowing. For it is his illustration, and he 
 was too profound a man to stultify himself in such a 
 manner. And no "it" can be found for "the body which 
 shall be." 
 
 For a man in debate, who is expected to prove his 
 points, to make a great flourish over a mere assertion, 
 which he knows his opponent, who stands on an equal 
 footing with himself, denies, there is no word which ex- 
 presses its mighty emptiness more appropriately than 
 buncombe, and the "poor fellow" would choose "censure" 
 rather than pity from such a source. 
 
 1 gave Dr. Schaif and Prof. Tayler Lewis as authori- 
 ties on the derivation of aion ; and you, my hearers, can 
 judge who stands highest in the learned world, these men 
 or my friend, Elder John E. Daily. He refers to some 
 names, but he gives no quotations from them, and, there- 
 fore, he stands alone in his "Greek lesson.*' 
 
 "But how can any one get generation and age from 
 breathe or blow?" They do not, but first life, then gen- 
 eration, age, which is perfectly legitimate and natural. 
 But, says Brother Daily, "Schaff gives the meaning of 
 
MR. HUGHES' SIXTH REPLY 315 
 
 aion as endless duration, eternity." Another blunder, for 
 it can be but a blunder. It misrepresents Dr. Sehaff, and 
 it shall not pass without proper exposure. Dr. Schaff 
 uses aion in its first form, and not in its plural form, 
 aio ncis. and after giving its derivation from ao aemi, to 
 breathe, to blow : then said, "hence life, generation, age, 
 then indefinitely, for endless duration, eternity." He 
 does not make eternity to be its first and natural mean- 
 ing, which is Brother Daily's position, but first and nat- 
 urally life, generation, age, and then indefinitely, end- 
 less duration, eternity. 
 
 Archbishop Trench, in defining axon, says: "Aiohes, 
 in I Tim. i. 17, must denote not the worlds in the usual 
 concrete meaning of the term, but according to the more 
 usual temporal meaning of aion in the New Testament, 
 the ages, the temporal periods, whose sum and aggregate 
 adumbrate the mighty conception of eternity." New 
 Testament. Synonyms, p. 133. The more usual meaning 
 of aion in the New Testament, according to this high 
 authority, is temporal periods, ages, and the sum of them 
 adumbrate, give a faint shadow of the mighty concep- 
 tion of eternity. And I am correct in saying that the 
 first meaning of aion is not eternity, and that use of- its 
 plurals and reduplications is to increase the sense of 
 duration, and not simply, as Mr. Daily says, for empha- 
 sis. He says scholars agree to this, but he has not quoted 
 any; and I have given several. That is the difference 
 between proof and bald assertions. 
 
 (anon Farrar says: "Aion, Hebrew olam, means 
 properly an age, an indefinite period, long or short. The 
 phrases which are asserted to imply endlessness are again 
 and again used of things which have long since ceased 
 
316 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 to exist. If axon meant eternity, how came it to have a 
 plural (aiones, olamin), and how came the Jews to talk 
 of forever and beyond? The latter alone was decisive to 
 the clear mind of Origen. He says the authority of the 
 Holy Scriptures taught him that the word rendered eter- 
 nity meant limited duration. The word by itself. 
 whether adjective or substantive, never means endless." 
 Mercy and Judgment^ p. 378. This is another testimony 
 in my favor. 
 
 Mr. Daily has not quoted a single lexicon or authority 
 which gives eternity as the first meaning of axon. The 
 universal usage of the word forbids it. It only means 
 eternal duration when the nature of the subject or the 
 thing to which it is applied forces to it. The word itself 
 cannot decide punishment to he endless. Proof must 
 come from something stronger than the words axon, aion- 
 ios. The best of learning assert this. So Mr. Rother- 
 ham, in his Emphasized New Testament, says: "Upon 
 the aionion correction (everlasting punishment, Matt, 
 xxv. 46) no arbitrary limit can be laid, unless, indeed. 
 the essential nature of 'corrrection' implies it : aionxos ut- 
 terly refuses to settle the dread question." 
 
 Dr. Milton Terry, professor of Christian Doctrine in 
 Garrett Bible Institute, assert-: "No positive or satis- 
 factory conclusion touching the future destiny of the soul 
 can be reached by the etymology or the suggestions of 
 any one word. Even the significant word eternal, aion- 
 ios. is insufficient in itself to determine such a question/' 
 Biblical Dogmatics, p. 134. 
 
 And Prof. Tayler Lewis puts it thus strongly: "The 
 preacher, in contending with the l niversalist or Restora- 
 tionist, would commit an error, and, maybe, suffer a 
 
MR. HUGHES SIXTH REPLY 317 
 
 failure in his argument, should he lay the whole stress of 
 it 011 the etymological or historical significance of the 
 words aion, aionios, and attempt to prove that of them- 
 selves they necessarily carry the meaning of endless dura- 
 tion." Lange's Com. Eccl., p. 48. 
 
 These concessions come from believers in endless pun- 
 ishments. If truth had not compelled them, they would 
 not have been made ; and they are vastly important in ex- 
 plaining passages where the words everlasting and eternal 
 are applied to punishment. Take, now, in view of them, 
 the passage most relied upon, Matt. xxv. 46, "These shall 
 go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous 
 into life eternal. 7 ' Both everlasting and eternal are 
 translations from aionios, rendered eternal in both cases 
 in the Revised Version. Punishment is certainly de- 
 clared, but the only proof of its duration is in the word 
 aionios. But if that word does not mean absolutely end- 
 less, then that doctrine is not proved ; nor can it be 
 proved by any passage by the force of this word where it 
 is applied to punishment. 
 
 The word from which the word punishment here 
 comes is kolasis, defined by Liddell and Scott, "a prun- 
 ing or checking the growth of trees. 2. Chastisement, 
 correction, punishment/' Bishop Wescott says of this 
 word : "The familiar classical distinction between timo- 
 ria, which regarded the retributive suffering, and kolasis, 
 which regarded the disciplinary chastisement of the 
 wrong-doer, was familiar with the Alexandrian Greeks." 
 So Clement, teacher in the theological school at Alexan- 
 dria; testifies: * Punishment (kolasis) is for the good 
 and advantage of him who is being punished, for it is the 
 amendment of one who resists; but vengeance (timoria) 
 
318 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 is a requital of evil sent for the interest of the avenger. 
 Now he would not desire to avenge himself on us, who 
 teaches to "pray for those who despitefully use us." The 
 punishment is chastisement, meant for correction, and 
 cannot therefore be endless. 
 
 But Brother Daily says it is the word which is applied 
 to the existence of God, and therefore must mean end- 
 less. So the Jew might say that the Mosaic Covenant is 
 never to end because the word everlasting is applied to it, 
 as it is applied to God. But what sense would there be 
 in it? But he also claims it defines the endless joys of 
 the righteous. But I have before shown you that eternal 
 expresses the kind of life, and not its duration. I quoted 
 from Jesus, "This is eternal life, that they might know 
 thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou 
 hast sent." Jno. xvii. 3. These words define the qual- 
 ity of this life. But he says again, "knowledge is not 
 life," but this true knowledge of God and Christ is eter- 
 nal life, notwithstanding Brother Daily's contradiction. 
 St. John says: "Beloved, let us love one another, for 
 love is of God, and every one that loveth is born of God 
 and knoweth God." I John iv. 7. The knowledge which 
 comes from the birth from above, and unites the soul to 
 God and Christ, is eternal life, and is the precious pos- 
 session of the true Christian now, and his present en- 
 joyment. "He that heareth my words, and belie veth on 
 him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come 
 into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." 
 John v. 24. "We know we have passed from death unto 
 life, because we love the brethren." I John iii. 14. 
 There is no question about it. This is the life of God in 
 the soul, as Jesus defines it, and he was not speaking of 
 
MR. HUGHES' SIXTH REPLY 319 
 
 its duration. "'And we know him that is true, and we 
 are in him that is true; even in his Son, Jesus Christ. 
 This is the tiue God and eternal life." I John v. 20. 
 
 But Mr. Daily thinks this punishment is to be award- 
 ed in a judgment at the end of the world. For at no 
 other time will "all nations" be gathered together. Why 
 all nations, then ? He has contended strenuously that 
 all nations does not mean all mankind. If so, why does 
 it now? The phrase "all nations'* and its parallel 
 phrases, "all families" and "all the kindreds of the 
 earth/* in the promise to Abraham, he denies means all 
 men. Even that very comprehensive phrase, "All the na- 
 tions whom thou hast made,** he disputes; and why does 
 it so mean now? Because it suits him now; then it did 
 not. He has a case to make out, and the demands are 
 very gieat ! ! I know men can be so bound up in a creed 
 as to bow down to it like a slave to his master. I pity the 
 man, but 1 confess I despise the creed that so befogs a 
 man of otherwise good judgment. 
 
 The time of this judgment is not at the end of the 
 world, but during Christ's reign, and begins when Christ 
 comes in his kingdom. "The Son of Man shall come in 
 the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he 
 shall reward eveiy one according to his works. Verily, 
 I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall 
 not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming- 
 in his kingdom." Matt. xvi. 27, 28. It seems impossi- 
 ble for one to read tins passage and not see that this 
 coming is past and that Christ now sits upon his throne 
 of judgment, as prophesied by Jeremiah; "Behold, the 
 days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a 
 righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, 
 
320 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth." 
 Jer. xxiii. 5. According to Isaiah, Christ's kingdom was 
 to be "established with judgment/' and he was to "set 
 judgment in the earth." Isa. ix. 7, xiii. 4. 
 
 There is not, therefore, to be a spectacular judgment 
 scene at the end of Christ's reign, for then he will give 
 up his kingdom, and be no ]onger a judge. "Then com- 
 eth the end, when he shall have delivered up the king- 
 dom to God the Father." I Cor. xv. 24. 
 
 But he says this is a final division of mankind into 
 two classes. Let him count again. There are three 
 classes, and so it is not his final judgment. There are 
 those on the right hand, those on the left, and the Lord's 
 brethren. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of 
 the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." 
 "Inasmuch as ye did it not unto the least one of tliese, 
 ye did it not to me." This points out the three classes 
 and spoils my friend's division of the world into two 
 classes. This is a judgment of the nations. Before him 
 shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate 
 them." 
 
 The "everlasting fire" of verse 41 is the same as the 
 "eternal correction" in verse 46. So is "the furnace 
 of fire, when the Lord shall send his messengers" and 
 "gather out of his kingdom those who work iniquity." 
 Matt. xiii. 42. These must have been first in his king- 
 dom before they could have been gathered out. The 
 "end of the world" here is the end of the age (it is 
 axon), and never means the end of the material world. 
 "Now once in the end of the 'world hath Christ appeared 
 to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. ix. 26. 
 Axon is the word my friend depends upon for eternity, 
 
MR. HUGHES SIXTH REPLY 32 1 
 
 but we see it has an end. Christ came to cast fire on the 
 earth, and he said, "What will I if it be already kindled/' 
 But this is the fire of correction, for "he shall sit as a 
 refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons 
 of Levi." Mai. iii. 3. The earth bearing "thorns and 
 briers" is burned, not for its destruction, but to fit it for 
 production, and so is a figure for man's correction. 
 Who, "if his works are burned, shall suffer loss, but him- 
 self be saved, yet so as by fire." Hos. iii. 15. 
 
 The figure of fire for purification is a common one in 
 the Old Testament. "The Lord's fire is in Zion, and his 
 furnace in Jerusalem." Isa. xxxi. 9. "When the Lord 
 shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion 
 and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the 
 midst thereof by the spirit of judgment and the spirit 
 of burning." Isa. iv. 4. So the word came to Ezekiel : 
 "Son of man, the house of Israel is to me become dross; 
 all they are brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the 
 midst of the furnace; they are even the dross of silver. 
 Therefore, thus saith the Lord God: Because ye are 
 become dross, behold, therefore, will I gather you in the 
 midst of Jerusalem. As they gather silver, and brass, 
 and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow 
 the fire upon it, and to melt it, so will I gather you in 
 mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, 
 and melt you. Yea, I will gather you and blow upon 
 you in the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in 
 the midst thereof. As silver is melted in the midst of 
 the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; 
 and ye shall know that I the Lord have poured out my 
 fury upon you." Ezek. xxii. 18-22. 
 
 There is no stronger or more fearful passage in all the 
 
3*2 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 Bible. It is a furnace of fire, and it is in Jerusalem. 
 Not an endless hell in the future world, but corrective 
 judgment, for "I will scatter thee among the heathen, 
 and disperse thee in the countries, and will consume thy 
 filthiness out of thee." Ezek. xxii. 15. 
 
 We find also the parallel of the "everlasting destruc- 
 tion from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his 
 power" (II Thess. i. 9), quoted by Brother Daily, in Jer. 
 xxiii. 39, 40 : "Therefore, behold, I will utterly forget 
 you, and I will forsake you, and the city I gave you and 
 your fathers, and cast you out of my presence ; and I will 
 bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual 
 shame which shall not be forgotten." Here the language 
 is just as strong as Paul's, and yet it meant no more than 
 seventy years of captivity in Babylon; and their present 
 state has been of much longer duration, of which Jesus 
 said: "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 
 For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth till 
 ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the 
 Lord." Matt, xxiii. 38,. 39. And this is just after Jesus 
 had pronounced the "judgment of Gehenna upon .them, 
 which should come before that generation should pass 
 away. 
 
 This "judgment of Gehenna** also finds its parallel in 
 Isa. lxvi. 23, 24: "And it shall come to pass that from 
 one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to an- 
 other, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the 
 Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the car- 
 casses of the men that have transgressed against me; 
 for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be 
 quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence unto all 
 flesh." This I have before shown from Jer. xix. 1-15 
 
MR. HUGHES' SIXTH REPLY 323 
 
 and Matt, xxiii. 32-36, is a symbol of complete national 
 punishment, ''both sonl and body/' as that term is used 
 in Isa. x. 18, "And shall consume the glory of his for- 
 est, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body." And 
 it is a punishment in time and on the earth, when these 
 new moons, and Sabbaths, and dead bodies lying un- 
 buried; and it cannot be applied to an endless hell, and 
 men are, in "immaterial" bodies, not subject to fire or 
 worms. 
 
 It is not true that the Jews, in our Savior's time, used 
 the word Gehenna in the sense of endless punishment. 
 There is not a single instance in all their writings where 
 they so used it until two or three hundred years after 
 Christ. So it is worse than folly to assume that they 
 would so understand Jesus when he pronounced the 
 judgment of Gehenna upon them; and my friend is not 
 to bolster his false doctrine by such false assertions ; and 
 more, he cannot show a single instance where the Jews 
 used the word aionios to express the endlessness of pun- 
 ishment. 
 
 Rev. Albert Dewes, perpetual curate of St. August- 
 ine's, Pendlebury, Manchester, published his researches 
 in reference to the word Gehenna, and he asserts that he 
 had read everything from the Jewish writings within 
 three hundred years of Christ, and the result of the most 
 critical examination is this: "There are but two pas- 
 sages which even a superficial reader could consider to be 
 corroborative of the assertion that the Jews understood 
 Gehenna to be a place of everlasting punishment." And 
 he adds of these two that "neither, when investigated, 
 could be held to lend any support." I could add much 
 mere on this point, but time will not permit. My friend 
 
324 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 is as much out of date in his references as in his theology. 
 He takes these passages out of their true relation, and. 
 in applying them to individual cases, makes them proofs 
 of annihilation. For destruction of soul and body is 
 that, whatever the word destroy means in other cases. 
 
 The reference to the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 
 is most unfortunate for my friend. Let us see : "Verily, 
 I say unto you, all sins shall be forgiven unto men, and 
 blasphemies, wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme." But 
 one exception is made here; and if all sins and rlas- 
 phemies shall be forgiven unto men. what then he- 
 comes of all my good brother's work in reference to judg- 
 ment on men's sins and the place of their future punish- 
 ment? All these sins shall be forgiven, and none shall 
 go to his everlasting punishment but those' who blas- 
 pheme the Holy Spirit! Why did he not save time, and 
 go to this text at once ? 
 
 But even the one exception docs not help him. Id 
 Matt. xii. 32 it is limited to this age (axon) and the 
 coming; and there were ages to come. "That in the ages 
 to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace/* 
 Eph. ii. 7. He quotes the G-reek and renders it "not hath 
 forgiveness to the eternity.*' "The eternity!" Is there 
 more than one eternity, that it should be specialized by 
 the definite article the? Would not the age have sounded 
 better? And then that points out a special age in which 
 this sin should not be forgiven, but should be forgiven in 
 the ages to come. In Matthew we have the phrase "this 
 world/' aion, age. Is it possible Jesus should use the 
 word aion in a limited sense, and again, in the same 
 breath, in an unlimited, eternity 1 ? This is another "les- 
 son in G-reek" from Brother Daily ! 
 
4 
 
 MR. hughes' sixth reply. 325 
 
 But before closing I must notice his argument on "the 
 end."' which he makes infinitely longer than the begin- 
 ning, or mans whole existence on earth. Ba^am's 
 poetry is subject to the law of parallelism; and so "Let 
 me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be 
 like his," shows he meant death as his last end, having no 
 reference to the future. Solomon said : "It is better to 
 go to the house of mourning than the house of feasting; 
 for that is the end of all men." Eccl. vii. 2. 
 
 Men reach the end. result, of their actions many times 
 in this life. Take the words of Paul, "What fruit had 
 ye. then, in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? 
 For the end of these things is death." The fruit and the 
 end are the same. They had it in their sinful state. It 
 was moral death. "To be carnally minded is death." 
 Rom. viii. 6. But he goes on: "But now, being made 
 free from sin. and become the servants of God, ye have 
 your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." 
 Bom. vi. 21. 22. They were then in possession of eternal 
 life — the end or fruit of their righteousness. "To be 
 spiritually minded is life and peace." Bom. viii. 6. "He 
 that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal 
 life." Jno. vi. 54. 
 
 The end of the wicked, Ps. Ixxiii. 17-19, is expressed in 
 the text. It was" cutting off from the earth: "Surely 
 thou didst set them in slippery places; thou eastedst 
 them down into destruction." The force of the text, 
 "Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth, 
 much more the wicked and the sinner," Prov. xi. 31, is 
 that under the law it was temporal rewards and punish- 
 ments, and there was no threat even of future punish- 
 ment 
 
326 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 "The end" in Phil. iii. 18, 19, is the appropriate and 
 natural one that results from glutony, debauchery and 
 licentiousness." He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the 
 flesh reap corruption." Gal. vi. 8. Men sow to the flesh 
 here, and they reap of the flesh here also. That is the 
 end of their sowing. 
 
 Of the text, Ps. xi. 5, 6, "Upon the wicked shall be 
 rain snares, fire, and brimstone, and an horrible tem- 
 pest; this shall be the portion of their cup," Dr. Adam 
 Clarke says : "This is a manifest allusion to the destruc- 
 tion of Sodom and Gomorrah." He also says: "Cup 
 is sometimes put for plenty, for abundance; but here it 
 seems to be used to express the quantum of sorrow and 
 misery which the wicked shall have on the earth." My 
 friends reference to the word "portion" does not repre- 
 sent the scriptural use of it. "The men of this world 
 have their portion in this life." Ps. xvii. 14. 
 
 Mr. Daily again repeats his bare assertions of man's 
 infinite responsibility to God. Eather God should be un- 
 der infinite responsibility to his creatures, that the exist- 
 ence he has conferred upon them unasked should not be 
 an endless curse 1 What has God done for the non-elect 
 to put them under obligation to him ? He gave them ex- 
 istence under total disability. There is no help for them 
 but in him, and he does not extend it. For he hates 
 them here, and will hate them to 'all eternity. Well 
 might Dr. Whedon say : "By foreordination God damns 
 them to hell an eternity before they were born ; holding 
 them guilty by an atrocious lie of a sin they never com- 
 mitted, he doubly damns them; subjecting them to a 
 paralysis of soul by which they cannot repent without the 
 spirit, and arbitrarily without the spirit, he trebly damns 
 them ; finally hemming them in by overruling motives to 
 
MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 327 
 
 impenitence, without power of contrary choice, he quad- 
 ruple damns them." This makes God the sole sinner of 
 the universe and man his impotent victim, 
 (Time expired.) 
 
 MB. DAILY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audience. and 
 Respected Opponent : I am now before you to make 
 my closing speech. His p]ay upon the words "The dead" 
 is weak indeed. I have proved that all that are in their 
 graves shall be raised, some to everlasting life, and some 
 to damnation. John v. 28, 29. To attempt an escape 
 from this positive proof, and other scriptures equally 
 plain, my opponent denies that "the dead" means "dead 
 bodies in the grave," insisting on "the grave" meaning 
 the literal burying place. This seems to be his only hope 
 of escape from the arguments and proofs I have ad- 
 vanced. I now cut him entirely off from that supposed 
 escape. It is a fact known by all that I have shown by 
 reference to Christ as "the dead" and Lazarus in the 
 same sense that their dead bodies were meant. But he 
 says Lazarus was but a single, special case, and "the 
 dead" means the multitude of the dead. He says the 
 dead are dead to us, but they are alive to God. He 
 then quotes. "God is not the God of the dead, but of the 
 living, for all live unto him." Xow this proves that 
 
328 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 the term "the dead'' means the dead bodies for he says 
 God is not the God of the dead, but defines that phrase 
 himself as meaning dead bodies. According to his own 
 argument, then, "the dead" in this text means "dead 
 bodies," and yet he has asserted over and over that "the 
 dead" never means "dead bodies." In saying that God is 
 not the God of the dead but of the living, Jesus refuted 
 the doctrine of the Sadducees, in which they denied 
 the existence of the soul in the future state. In assert- 
 ing that "the dead are raised," using the historic present, 
 he refuted their doctrine in which they denied the 
 resurrection of the body. As "the dead" meant dead 
 bodies, and "the living" mean living souls, if the 
 dead are raised it will be the "dead bodies" that will be 
 raised. "The dead" is mentioned many times in 1. Cor. 
 xv., in connection with the resurrection of Christ, in 
 which the apostle shows that Christ died, was buried, and 
 rose again the third day. As it was Christ's body that 
 died, was buried, and rose again the third day, the 
 resurrection of "the dead," of which Christ was an ex- 
 ample, means the resurrection of "dead bodies." So "the 
 dead" means "dead bodies." The body and the spirit are 
 both God's. I. Cor. vi. 20. The vile body is to be 
 changed and fashioned like unto the glorious body of our 
 risen Redeemer, for the reason that it, as well as the 
 soul, belongs to him. Phil. iii. 21. So when it is de- 
 clared that he is the God of the living and not of the 
 dead the notion of the Sadducees that death holds the 
 entire being of the departed was refuted, and the grand 
 truth was taught that the body which was once living 
 should live again in the likeness of the glorious body of 
 Jesus, so that God was declared to be the God of the en- 
 
MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 329 
 
 tire being of his saints. Thus the two false notions 
 of the Sadducees were refuted^ that the souls of the de- 
 parted were not living and that the bodies would never 
 live. 
 
 I exposed his mistake that "the deep" was from hades 
 in the text, "Who shall descend into the deep, that 
 is to bring up Christ again from the dead." Admitting 
 that I was right, that "deep'' is from abnsson, which is 
 abyss, he then said it means the same as hades, and that 
 the grave is not referred to. He has never attempted 
 any reply to my argument that the body only is held 
 by the abyss of death or hades, where a mere state of 
 death is referred to. that the soul lives on after its sep- 
 aration from the body, and so if there is a resurrection 
 of the dead at all it will be a resurrection of that which 
 is in a state of death. Wherever the body is while held 
 by the abyss of death is its grave, so when it is raised 
 from that abyss it is raised from the grave. It was so 
 with the body of Christ and it will be so with the bodies 
 of all in the final resurrection of the just and unjust. 
 
 As Dr. Schaff does give to aion the final meaning of 
 "endless duration, eternity/ 5 be plants himself squarely 
 against my oponent and on my side of the question. To 
 say that the first meaning given by a lexicographer is the 
 final and generally accepted meaning betrays an ignorance 
 that is unworthy of a mere tyro in diction. The first 
 meaning given often leads to the final and generally 
 accepted definition, as the example of the learned Dr. 
 Schaff shows. As Archbishop Trench concludes that the 
 tempera! periods, in their sum and aggregate, "adum- 
 brate the mighty conceptions of eternity," he, with Dr. 
 Schaff, stands with me and against my friend. 
 
330 SKCOND PROPOSITION 
 
 As to the meaning of axon and aionios, there can be no 
 doubt that the translators were right in rendering them 
 eternity and eternal, forever, everlasting, etc. They must 
 have been acquainted with the Greek language, and so 
 must have given the correct rendering. The learned 
 Moses Stuart very correctly says, "Either the declara- 
 tions of the Scriptures do not establish the fact that God 
 and his glory and praise and happiness are endless, nor 
 that the happiness of the righteous in the future world is 
 endless; or else they establish the fact that the punish- 
 ment of the wicked is endless. The whole stand or fall 
 together. There can, from the very nature of the anti- 
 thesis, be no room for rational doubt here, in what man- 
 ner we interpret the declarations of the sacred writers. 
 We must either admit the endless misery of hell, or give 
 up the endless happiness of heaven/' Mr. Hughes 
 dare not deny that the Greek word for always is aei, and 
 the word for being (participle) is on. These are com- 
 bined in the word aion, always being. To say that 
 eternal does not express duration but kind is a bald as- 
 sertion made in the face of all lexicographers of any 
 note. It is a weak cause indeed that requires such sub- 
 terfuge to be taken by its defenders. 
 
 I want now in the time I shall stand before you in 
 this closing address to give you a brief summary of what 
 has been gone over by us in the two days we have been 
 discussing this proposition. T shall first state some 
 things about which we differ. First, we differ in regard 
 to what constitutes the human family. According to 
 Mr. Hughes' view no one ever saw a human being. The 
 human family, as he understands it, consists of a family 
 of spirits, and beings born male and female are net 
 
MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 33 1 
 
 human beings at all. There can he no such a thing as a 
 human being born of the flesh according to his position. 
 My position is that the human family consists of the 
 family of Adam, first created in him of the dust, male 
 and female, into whom was breathed the breath of life. 
 These human beings, visible and tangible, possessing 
 spirits, are under law to God, and must either rise to 
 endless bliss above or sink to endless woe. 
 
 Second, we differ in regard to what the sowing is that 
 is mentioned in the 15th chapter of First Corinthians. 
 I believe it is the body that is sown into death when the 
 spirit separates from it. He says it is the man that is 
 sown here before death, both spirit and body. He has no 
 proof whatever -for his position and so has given none. 
 The Bible says, "It is sown a natural hodj, ,:> which set- 
 tles the question. 
 
 Third, we differ in regard to what it is that is raised 
 in the resurrection of the dead. I have proved that it 
 is dead when the spirit separates from it at 
 death, quoting "The spirit without the body is dead/' 
 To this he has paid no attention. Having proved by this 
 it is the body that is dead, T have shown that if there is 
 any resurrection of the rlead it must necessarily be a 
 resurrection of the body. His position is that it is the 
 living spirit that is raised into a new body. This is no 
 resurrection of the dead at all, but a mere lifting up of 
 the living. 
 
 Fourth, we differ in regard to the resurrection of 
 Christ. He has not attempted to show what was raised. 
 but has emploved his time in denying what I have abund- 
 antly proved, that the body which was laid in the sep- 
 ulchre, the very body that died on the cross, was raised 
 
33 2 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 from the dead. His position seems to be that a new 
 body was formed for him, hut that is a denial of any 
 resurrection whatever. Tf the body was not raised, but a 
 new one formed, then the Christ that died on the cross 
 was not raised at all. He has not produced a single 
 passage to prove that a new body was formed and given 
 him, for no such passage could be produced. When christ 
 said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will 
 raise it again/"-' he referred to his body. This Mr. 
 Hughes has not attempted to deny. When the angel 
 said to the early visitors at the sepulchre, ''Come see the 
 place where the Lord lay: he is not here; he is risen as 
 he said/' the body of Christ was meant. This with 
 aboundant other proof has been given on this point, but 
 my opponent has kept up his denial in the face of all 
 these plain facts. He had to do this to sustain the doc- 
 trine of Fniversalism, and it has been surprising how he 
 lias retained his composure under such overwhelming 
 defeat. 
 
 Fifth, my argument founded on the dissension be- 
 tween the Sadducees and Pharisees, caused by Paul tak- 
 ing the side of the Pharisees on the resurrection of the 
 dead, is positive proof that he believed in the resurrec- 
 tion of the body, for that was the belief of the Pharisees. 
 As Mr. Hughes takes issue with me on that he places 
 himself on the side of the Sadducees. 
 
 Sixth, it is declared by the prophet that "T will ran- 
 som them from the power of the grave, I will redeem 
 them from death." The spirit cannot be ransomed from 
 the power of the grave, for it never goes there. Tf the 
 body which goes to the grave is never raised from it, 
 and which goes down into death is never redeemed from 
 
mr. m:ly s seventh speech. 333 
 
 it, then there is no ransom from one or redemption from 
 the other. 
 
 Seventh, our Saviour endorsed the doctrine of the 
 Jews, as expressed by Martha, when lie informed her 
 that her brother should rise again. He demonstrated 
 the resurrection to which lie referred when he raised the 
 body of Lazarus from the grave. That he was speaking 
 of the resurrection of the dead there can he no question. 
 That lie raised the dead is equally certain. It is thus 
 taught and demonstrated by Christ what is meant by the 
 resurrection of the dead. This is unmistakable proof 
 by teaching and demonstration of what is meant by the 
 resurrection of the dead. 
 
 I have proved that there is a contrast between the 
 wicked and the righteous here, at death, and at the 
 resurrection. He has admitted that contrast up to the 
 time of the resurrection, a time he never has been able 
 to locate, however. Tn admitting the punishment of the 
 finally wicked and impenitent after death, he admitted 
 this contrast and in admitting that there would be a 
 resurrection both of the just and the unjust he ad- 
 mitted the contrast up to that point. His failure to 
 prove any change after the resurrection or even after 
 death in the condition or state of the wicked decided the 
 issue in my favor. 
 
 I have proved the general judgment by a number of 
 passages, and have proved that the wicked are separated 
 from the righteous and sent away into punishment at the 
 same time the righteous are admitted into a glorified 
 state. Paul reasoned with Felix "of righteousness, tem- 
 perance and a judgment to come." "The Lord knoweth 
 how to deliver the godly out of temptation and to reserve 
 
||4 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." 
 This judgment is after death, for "it is appointed unto 
 men once to die, but after this the judgment." As there 
 will be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust, this 
 judgment will be after the resurrection. This is the 
 eternal judgment referred to in Heb. vi. 2. This day of 
 judgment has been appointed, by which God has dis- 
 tinguished it from all other acts of his divine providence. 
 Acts xvii. 31. 
 
 As to the place of punishment, there ought to be no 
 dispute between us over that, as he has admitted and 
 even contended that the finally wicked would be punished 
 in the world to come. I proved there is such a place by 
 passages that cannot possibly be construed to mean any- 
 thing else. I quoted many passages that prove that 
 Christ confirmed the opinion the Jews already enter- 
 tained that there is a place of punishment in the future 
 world. If they had been wrong he would have corrected 
 them, but instead of doing so he taught the same thing in 
 the scriptures I quoted. 
 
 I proved that the future punishment of the wicked is 
 represented as their end. If TTniversalism were true the 
 end of the wicked would be as favorable and desirable as 
 the righteous, as the end would be the same. But the 
 Bible teaches that their end is death, and this is said in 
 contrast to the everlasting life to be enjoyed by the 
 righteous. 
 
 I have proved that the existence of God, the bliss of the 
 righteous, and the punishment of the wicked, are all 
 designated by the very same terms. The Greek terms 
 used, and the English words given in translation, all go 
 t« «6tablisb without the shadow of doubt the equal dura- 
 
• MR. »AI«.Y'» •tfYBNTH jMPSflMflt. %%$ 
 
 tion of God's existence, the joys of the righteous, and 
 the punishment of the wicked. 
 
 My opponent, after taking the position that there u 
 punishment in the future world, tries to make it appear 
 that all punishment referred to in the Bible is confined 
 to this world. These futile attempts only betray the ex- 
 treme weakness of the cause he tries to bolster up. 
 
 I feel glad that it has been my privilege to stand up in 
 support and defence of the truth, the plain and unmis- 
 takable teaching of the sacred and holy word of God. 
 I close with the thought that we may not meet any more 
 in this world of sorrow. If we do not, I hope we may 
 meet where joy will be endless and where all tears will be 
 forever wiped from our eyes. I do not know that all 
 this congregation will be in that happy home. I cannot 
 pass judgment, for it is not mine to pass, but I can 
 proclaim the blessed gospel which is so sweet to me and 
 to all those who love the Lord. When the time comes 
 for me to breathe out the last breath of this life, I hope 
 my Lord will say, "It is enough, come up higher." Time 
 is not long enough, and eternity will not be too long, to 
 sing praises unto our heavenly Father for his wonderful 
 grace and mercy. Afflictions may come, it matters not, 
 for God has promised to remove all our afflictions, and 
 I praise him for his promise. I thank you for your 
 attention. (Time expired.) 
 
336 SECOND PROPOSITION, 
 
 ME. HUGHES; CLOSING NEGATIVE. 
 
 Gentlemen Moderator, Ladies and Gentlemen, 
 and Respected Opponent — Our rules forbid any new 
 matter in the final negative, except in reply to what 
 may have been introduced in the closing affirmative for 
 the first time. I shall endeavor to comply with the rule. 
 
 My friend makes reference again to the phrase "the 
 dead,'' and reaffirms that it means "dead bodies in the 
 grave." But I must be allowed to say he has never found 
 a passage where it so means, and it was most vital for 
 his cause for him to do so. He never gave us an instance 
 where Christ was referred to as "the dead." Those 
 words could not be applied to one person. They include 
 all the dead. In the case of Lazarus, the revised version 
 leaves out the words "the dead" as not being in the 
 original text. To this I called his attention. So he has 
 utterly failed as to both Jesus and Lazarus. But he 
 says I defined the words in Luke, "God is not the God of 
 the dead," as meaning dead, bodies. With the Sadducees, 
 who denied the existence of "angel or spirit," there would 
 be nothing remaining but dead bodies, and as God is the 
 God of the living spirit, it was the souls of Abraham, 
 Isaac and Jacob that were then enjoying the resurrec- 
 tion; for Jesus said "the dead are rained!' And it was 
 not the natural bodies that were to be raised at some 
 future time. I was not defining those words to mean 
 dead bodies. How could I when I had been demanding 
 for two whole days of my friend a passage where they so 
 mean? 
 
MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH REPLY. 337 
 
 But the word abyss means the grave of the bodies 
 wherever they may be, in a literal tomb, in the sea, or 
 anywhere. So a body might decay on top of ground 
 and never be buried, and still be in the abyss, the grave ! 
 Necessity is said to be mother of invention ! The word 
 abyss or its original occurs in the New Testament but 
 nine times: in Eom. x. 7 and Lukeviii.31, where the 
 demons besought Christ that he would not send them out 
 into the deep abyss — surely not the grave — and the re- 
 maining times in the book of Eevelation, where it is 
 rendered the "bottomless pit," where the devil was cast. 
 In no instance does it mean the grave, but is akin to 
 hades; and as Peter says of Christ that "he was not left 
 in hades/' so Christ's real resurrection was from hades, 
 and not from the literal grave. 
 
 But, says my brother, the words of Christ, "now that 
 the dead are raised," is in the historic present. Nay, 
 verily ; it was the statement of a then present fact. Paul 
 uses the same tense, speaking of the resurrection : "For 
 if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been 
 raised. 1 Cor. xv. 16 (revised version) . Again in 2 Cor. ' 
 y. 1 : "For we know if our earthly house of our taber- 
 nacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house 
 not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." One 
 succeeds the other. "We have" says the apostle, the new 
 resurrection body. 
 
 As to the resurrection of Christ, Brother Daily affirmed 
 at the first that he appeared in a spiritual body, and that 
 was the reason he could pass through a material door. 
 And that was my ground. For the greater part of the 
 forty days before his ascension he was invisible to ma- 
 terial eyes, and was only seen of them as he manifested 
 himself to them. He appeared in different forms, and 
 
338 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 was only known to them as he revelaed himself to them. 
 This being so, it could not be his material body. That 
 he showed his pierced side, hands and feet was but one 
 of his manifestations for the convincing of his disciples. 
 
 While on this subject, I will finish what I have to say 
 on the resurrection of the natural body. My friend has 
 nothing to say in reference to Job "seeing God in his 
 flesh." For the evidence was too strong that Job hoped 
 to see God "out of his .flesh/' or "from, his flesh/' and so 
 it was too evident a proof against the resurrection of the 
 body. 
 
 The language of Hosea xiii. 14, "I will ransom them 
 from the power of the grave," is properly from the power 
 of sheol, which corresponds to hades. So it is understood 
 by St. Paul in (1 Cor. xv. 55) "0 grave (hades) where 
 is thy victory." Sheol or hades is the place or state of 
 the dead, the state from whence Christ was. raised, and 
 from which all men will be raised, and. not from literal 
 graves. It is therefore a very strong argument for my 
 position, and diametrically opposed to my friend's. 
 4 The temple of Christ's body was raised again when he 
 put on his glorious body. The particles of dust compos- 
 ing the material body are not essential to its validity at 
 some other time. T showed you this when I referred you 
 to the change of material bodies, and that the body might 
 be consumed by and become a part of another body, and 
 so impossible for both to have the same material in body 
 again. 
 
 I called his attention and yours, my friends, to the fact 
 that Paul did not think he had settled the doctrine of 
 the resurrection of the body in the first half of the 15th 
 of 1st Cor., where Mr. Daily has made the most of his 
 argument. For at the 35th verse he calls up that ques- 
 
MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH REPLY 339 
 
 tion for the first time, "How are the dead raised up, and 
 with what body do they come?" And even then it was 
 not how are dead bodies to be raised, but how are the 
 dead raised up, and with what body do they come? The 
 dead, and the bodies they are to have are two different 
 things. The answer is : "Thou fool, that which thou 
 sowest is not quickened except it die. And that which 
 thou sowest, thou sowest not that body which 
 shall be." As long as those words stand, the resurrec- 
 tion of the natural body cannot be. 
 
 The phrase "the dead" expresses the relation in which 
 they stand to us. We call them dead. But that is not 
 the relation in which they stand to God. They are alive 
 to him. In that relation they "the dead are raised." 
 They did not come into that relation by the resurrection 
 of their natural bodies, but by being "clothed upon with 
 the house which is from heaven." 2 Cor. v. 2. The 
 man was composed of "soul and body." There was a 
 separation of the two, which was death. The soul was 
 "clothed upon with the building of God, the house not 
 made with hands which is eternal in the heavens." 2 
 Cor. v. 1. This was the resurrection. 
 . J most clearly showed that St. Paul nor did Jesus 
 endorse all the absurd vagaries of the Pharisees regard- 
 ing the resurrection, only as to the fact of a resurrection. 
 Paul had hope toward God that there should be a res- 
 urrection both of the just and the unjust. I called at- 
 tention to the fact that the words "of the dead" do not 
 occur in the original, and so this is not a hope that some 
 are to remain unjust in the state of the dead, and then 
 to be raised unjust, which would be a most unrighteous 
 hope indeed. Paul's hope was that all who die in Adam 
 should be made alive in Christ. . 
 
,34° SECOND PROPOSITION 
 
 I Martha's Jewish belief in a future day resurrection 
 
 Lwas corrected by Jesus when he called her mind back to 
 
 himself by those emphatic words, "I am the resurrection 
 
 and the life." And how Such language can be construed 
 
 "to prove the Jewish idea is beyond my comprehension, 
 
 1 when this same Jesns speaks of the Father that "raiseih 
 
 ; up the dead and quickeneth them." Jno. v. 21. 
 
 In stating the things wherein we differ, he names the 
 'constitution of the human family as one of them. And 
 he says, according to my view no one ever saw a human 
 being. But I stated distinctly that man here is both 
 soul and body, and that hereafter he will be both soul 
 and body, but there have a spiritual body instead of a 
 -material one. So far I suppose I have seen as many 
 s human beings as he has. But I have looked deeper than 
 the mere body for man's true characteristics, while he 
 has been engrossed with the outward, and so material- 
 istic as to have not seen more than the things temporal. 
 2 Cor. v. 18. He believes the material possesses the 
 spiritual, while T believe the spiritual is the more im- 
 portant part and possesses the material, which is "the 
 earthly house of our tabernacle." % Cor. v-. 1. It is 
 "our vile body that is to be fashioned anew like unto 
 his glorious body," and "the body of his glory" is not 
 ;, his material body, nor will he ours which is to be like 
 his. Phil, iii, 21. revised version. "Flesh and blood 
 " cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corrup- 
 : tion inherit incorruption." 1 Cor. xv. 50. - 
 
 The sowing of the seed is used as the illustration of 
 
 ; the sowing of man. But the seed is sown before it dies. 
 
 Man is therefore in his sown state before he dies ; and 
 
 'the sowing is not the burial of a dead body. And I 
 
 ? ^showed you how absurd it i$ to speak of the body as 
 
MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH- REPLY ^01 
 
 being buried in corruption (a word meaning spiritual 
 corruption) and in weakness, in dishonor and a natural 
 body in the sense of Brother Daily. 
 
 He tells you he has proved a general judgment by a 
 number of passage?. If my friend ever quoted a pass- 
 age, or even made a simple assertion without proof, it 
 was always proved in his estimation, however much was 
 said to the contrary. God may "reserve the ungodly 
 under punishment unto the day of judgment" (for that 
 is the correct translation), and there is undoubtedly 
 "judgment to come/' but that does not prove that it is a 
 judgment at the end of time. For then Christ gives up 
 his kingdom and is no longer a judge. During his 
 reign he has been judging the world. "Behold the days 
 come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a 
 righteous Branch, and a king shall reign. and prosper, 
 and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth." 
 Jer. xxiii. 5. 
 
 The end of the wicked does not refer to the final state 
 of man. "The house of mourning is the end of all men/' 
 And there is no passage speaking of the end of man that 
 refers to his final state. I gave an example in Bom. vi. 
 21 where the fruit men had in their sins was ihe end 
 death. But afterwards it was said of them that, being 
 free from sin, they had their frvit unto holiness, and 
 the end everlasting life." 
 
 But Div Serial? gives to axon the final meaning of end- 
 less duration. And "To say that the first meaning given 
 by a lexicographer is the final and generally accepted 
 meaning, he betrays -an ignorance that is unworthy of a 
 mere tyro in diction." That is a small ebullition of. my 
 friend's beautiful temper that shows itself on occasions 
 when he is up to a difficulty he ea.»n.©t g^rm^jiBt It? 
 
342 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 cannot be profane, so he must slur his "worthy oppo- 
 nent." It is true that words may change in meaning, 
 and the lexicographers note it, and the attained meaning 
 takes its place in the dictionary. But when did aion 
 reach eternity as its first and leading meaning ? It had 
 not with Dr. Schafr 1 , nor with Archbishop Trence. Here 
 are his words : "Aiones in 1 Tim. i. 17 must denote not 
 the worlds in the usual concrete meaning of the term, 
 but according to the more usual temporal meaning of 
 aion in the New Testament, the ages, the temporal 
 periods whose sum and aggregate adumbrate the mighty 
 conception of eternity." 
 
 The usual meaning of aion in the New Testament "is 
 therefore temporal periods/' "the ages." That is all I 
 have contended for. I have said when the nature or 
 circumstances of the things to which they are applied 
 demand it, it so means, and have asked my friend to 
 show what there is in the nature or circumstance con- 
 nected with punishment which demands it to be endless; 
 and I get no answer. But the sum and aggregate of 
 "these temporal periods," "the ages/' adumbrate ike 
 mighty conception of eternity. But if a temporal age, 
 or aion, be repeated a million of times,, it will not make 
 eternity. A tyro in learning ought to know that. And 
 Trench only asserts that they will adumbrate the mighty 
 conception of eternity. To adumbrate does not give a 
 full conception of it. No man ever had or can have a 
 full conception of eternity. And to adumbrate is only 
 to give a faint shadow; and this shadow is no more 
 eternity than a shadow is the sun. But how do Mr. 
 Daily's words sound alongside of his rule ? "A word 
 must be taken in its literal sense unless the context im- 
 periously demands a different meaning." What is, 
 
therefore, the literal meaning of aionf Dr. Schaff says 
 "life, generation, age;" then "indefinitely, for endless 
 duration, eternity." And Trench says it means a "tem- 
 poral period" and "age." And it is only by -an. aggre- 
 gation, of them that we get a shadow of the idea of 
 eternity. ; 
 
 You will remember I have, told you that the use of 
 aion in the plural and its repetition as ages of ages was 
 to raise the conception of the mind of increased dura- 
 tion. My friend then hotly contested my position, and 
 claimed it was only for emphasis that we have plurals 
 and reduplications; but now he has at last blundered 
 upon the truth in his quotation from Trench that it is 
 only by taking the sum and aggregate of periods and 
 ages we get the shadow of a conception of eternity. 
 
 But notwithstanding all this, and his yielding to the 
 authority of Schaff and Trench, he again asserts that 
 aion is derived from aei on, always being. But Dr. 
 Sch&ff says that it came probably from ao aemi, to 
 breathe, to blow. Now, either Mr. DMly or Dr. Schaff 
 
 is wrong. It is hardly worth while to tell you, my 
 friends, which is right. Especially after Mr. Daily has 
 accepted the definition of Dr. Schaff. 
 
 Because the word aionios as applied to God means 
 endless is no proof that when it is applied to punish- 
 ment it must mean endless. No more than that it 
 proves that the Aaronic priesthood is endless for the 
 same reason, or in hundreds of other cases where the 
 word is applied to other things temporal in their nature. 
 Remember that the word "aion in its more common 
 usag£ in the New Testament means age/' and that is "a 
 strong reason why it does not mean endless when ap- 
 plied to punishment. My friend has not shown that the 
 word mondos is applied to the blessedness of the rigiit- 
 
$44 *$eom> proposition. 
 
 eons in the future state, but I have shown that it is ap- 
 plied positively to their eternal life here. "He that 
 heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, 
 hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation, 
 but is. passed from death unto life." Jno. v. 24. 
 
 The fact that the Greek word kotasis for punishment 
 in Matt. xxv. 46 means chastisement, punishment for 
 correction, is an invincible argument against endless 
 punishment. For punishment for correction in the. very 
 nature of things cannot be vindictive and endless. So it 
 is said: "The Lord will not cast off forever. But 
 though he cause grief, } r et will he have compassion ac- 
 cording to the multitude of his mercies. For lie doth 
 not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." 
 Leam. iii. 31-33. "He retaineth not his anger forever, 
 because he delighteth in mercy." Micah vii. 18. Isa. 
 ivii. t These passages show the nature of punish- 
 ment; and declare with positiveness that it cannot be 
 endless. 
 
 Now, at the conclusion of this discussion I can but 
 express my gratitude to you, my friends, for the respect- 
 ful attention you have given us. To the Moderators 
 also, who have presided over us so impartially. To my 
 friend who has battled so earnestly for the truth as he 
 understands it, I have none but the kindest of feelings 
 and the fullest respect. While I believe him mistaken 
 in his theology, yet I believe him conscientious, and that 
 he labors with the best of intentions ; and that some day 
 he will see in the clearer light, and his heart made 
 warm in the better creed. I pray God's blessing upon 
 you all; and may this discussion tend to the promotion 
 of truth and righteousness in the world. 
 ..,tim$- mpir&4. 
 
APR 12 1910 
 
One copy del. to Cat. Div. 
 
 it :