1. In extinction the being does not exists--he is a nonentity. While his consciousness remains, you may punish him, but the moment he drops into nonexistence, that moment his punishment ceases; for there is nothing to punish. All the punishment, therefore, there can be in the case is that which preceeds annihilation. Hence annihilation itself can be no punishment.

2. Extinction of being, instead of being a punishment, would be a relief from it; a cessation of conscious suffering. Elder Grant himself has taught this. In his tract entitled "The Rich Man and Lazarus," he says, "We dread to be deaf, much more to be deaf and dumb; but to be deaf and dumb and blind is so near being dead, that life must be but a burden, almost intolerable to be borne, by one who has once enjoyed the full possession of his faculties." Now when you get a being into such a situation that life becomes to him a burden intolerable to be borne, to blot him out of existence would be a sweet relief. He would hail it as the end of all suffering, instead of the beginning of eternal punishment.

3. Extinction of being cannot be a punishment of loss; for there is nothing left to be conscious of any loss. All the consciousness of loss there can be, is in anticipation of it, while the being is conscious; and hence all the punishment of loss is in conscious suffering preceeding annihilation, and not in annihilation itself. The idea that a nonentity can have any consciousness of loss is too absurd to be entertained for a single moment. If there is a being that lives on through eternity, as I contend there is, the consciousness of loss can be a punishment to such a being. He can suffer all the piercing pangs which a sense of his lost and hopeless condition must evermore inflict. He can contemplate, with the keenest sense of anguish, remorse, and self-condemnation, the joys of eternal life and the bliss of heaven, once attainable and within his reach, but now lost to him forever. The consciousness of loss will be an element in his suffering. But a nonentity can have no consciousness of loss: and, therefore, loss can be no punishment, if the wicked are to be blotted out of existence.

4. If extinction of being is a punishment, then the righteous suffer it as well as the wicked; for the gentleman claims that death is an extinction of being; and, if that be the case, the being of the righteous is extinguished as well as that of the wicked. The length of time that the extinction continues can make no difference as to the amount of punishment. A nonentity can feel no more by being annihilated eternally than by being annihilated a few hundred years. Hence if the righteous are extinguished at death, according to the theory of my opponent, they suffer just as much punishment as the wicked.

In discussing this question of the punishment of the wicked, it will be well for us to understand what we are about. We must not confound the Adamic sin with actual transgression. The punishment of the former and that of the latter are two very different matters. What, then, was the penalty pronounced upon the sin of Adam? I answer, death-natural death-the dissolution of the body and spirit. The sentence ran thus: "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." "And because

thou hast hearkened into the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, thou shalt not eat of it; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the ground; for out of it thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." This penalty was inflicted upon Adam as a result of his expulsion from the garden and the tree of life. The way to the tree of life was guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword; lest he should partake of that tree and live forever, even in his sin. Hence he died, and the penalty of the law was inflicted upon him as a consequence of his exclusion from the tree of life. His body did not become mortal in consequence of his sin. It was created mortal in the first place. It was made of perishable material. It was made, as the Apostle says, " subject to vanity or decay." Hence, his death was not the result of a change in his nature, but of a change of state or condition. Being expelled from the garden, and prohibited all access to the tree of life, he had no means of perpetuating his earthly existance; and he died as a consequence, when his physical organism had become worn out with old age. He was excluded from the garden, and passed into a state of death on the day he ate of the interdicted tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Now let it be observed that this death was a penalty only in Adam's case; for Adam alone violated the law-was the sinner. If we make it a penalty in the case of all his posterity, then the descendants of Adam are punished for his sin. It was a penalty, therefore, only in Adam's case; but passed upon his posterity as a consequence. We must distinguish between a penalty and a consequence; for there is a wide difference between them. Suppose I draw a dagger and stab my opponent to the heart, and he falls dead upon this platform. His family and the congregation he ministers to, are depending upon him for support and instruction, and they must suffer the consequences of his death. He is innocent, and yet he suffers death; they are innocent, and yet they have to suffer all the sad consequences of being deprived of his support and instruction; and thus a chain of consequences is set in motion that may continue through many generations. It will not do to say that all these innocent persons are punished for my crime. It is not true. The law of the land will punish me for my crime with death; while all the sad consequences of my rash and wicked act will pass upon these innocent persons. So in the case of Adam. The death that was inflicted upon him as a penalty, has passed upon all his posterity as a consequence, by virtue of their connection with him. To illustrate the matter still further, suppose my father to be a man of wealth, influence, and position in society. His children, then, are born to the inheritance of his estate and social position. But if he becomes a bankrupt and disgraces himself by unworthy conduct, we inherit his poverty and disgrace. They came upon us, not as a pun ishment for his misconduct, but as an inevitable consequence of our connection with him. So, had Adam's posterity been born to him in Paradise, while he was in a state of purity and life, they would have inherited his life and purity. But they were born to him outside of the garden, away from the tree of life, and after the fall; and consequently

have inherited his dying condition and his spiritual poverty. Death has passed upon all the race, not as a penalty, but as a consequence. The death of the body is the physical consequence, while spiritual death or depravity is the moral consequence flowing from Adam's sin.

In the case of the Adamic sin, no provision was ever made for the remission of the penalty. It had to be suffered. The consequences, too, were not averted. They must take their effect. The whole race have become sinners, and death has passed upon all, whether old or young, rich or poor, white or black, savage or civilized, saint or sinner. Death does not come upon us by virtue of any voluntary or involuntary action on our part-it is wholly independent of any thing we have done or can do. And so is also the resurrection from the dead. We go down to the grave as a consequence of Adam's sin, and come up from it as a consequence of Christ's righteousness. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The resurrection itself depends on no condition whatever on our part; but our condition beyond the resurrection and at the judgment seat of Christ, depends upon our own conduct and the characters we have formed in this life. We do not therefore stand condemned at the judgment on account of Adam's sin, but on account of our own actual transgressions. It is these that we are to be punished for in the future world, and not for the sin of Adam. Hence the infant that dies before reaching the period of accountability, is saved. It has no sin to answer for. It is the type of innocence and purity. The Savior said, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." But those who have passed the period of accountability, who have lived in a state of probation, who have been surrounded by the blessed influences of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and yet have rejected it, and despised its invitations of mercy, will have to suffer eternal punishment. Jesus says: "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, and before him shall be gathered all nations. And he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand; but the goats on his left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered, and you gave me meat; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came unto me, Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty and gave thee drink; when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and come unto thee? Then shall the King answer, and say unto them, Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also to them on his left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was an hungered, and you gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and you clothed me not;

sick, and in prison, and you visited me not. Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall He answer them saying, Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of the least of these, ye did it not unto me. And these shall

go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." Here we have the grand summing up of the world's drama. Here is the judgement seat; here is Christ seated upon it; and here are the assembled millions of Adam's race gathered around it. The two classes the righteous and the wicked-are separated from each other, and consigned to their respective destinies: the righteous to everlasting life, and the wicked to eternal punishment. Now, Mr. President, I claim that the eternal punishment of the wicked is just as enduring as the eternal life of the rightious; that the kolasin aionion is just as endless as the zoen aionion. This, sir, is my Gibralter, my Sebastopol; and I challenge my opponent to take it in this discussion. (Time expired.)

FIRST SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT:

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:

His last remarks

I am much obliged to the gentleman for helpiug me, were admirable. I don't believe I could have done so well myself. I really believe that he is becoming converted—that is, if he believes what he says.

We did hope that he would notice some of the Scriptures that we have presented. But it seems that he has not deigned to do so, only to turn them into ridicule. We had hoped that he had got through sneering at Scriptures which he cannot meet. We will never ridicule an argument

we cannot answer.'

He inquires, "Can a non-entity be punished?" It is the man, sir, that is to be punished. If we should ask our friend, if he considered it any punishment to be put into non-entity? we think he would say, I will give all I have, to continue a conscious being. We claim, sir, that death is the highest possible punishment that can be inflicted.

He tells us that apollumi means "loss," and seems to carry the idea that this is its principal use. But suppose we adopt this definition of the word; then we inquire what is lost? We shall find before we get through with the subject, that man is to lose his life-himself. Let me give some examples of the use of apollumi.-Lk. 5: 37. "No man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish." The bottles certainly are not formented. We wish simply to show that these words are not used to represent torment. Our object is to illustrate the use of the words, and then show their application to the punishment of the wicked. John 6: 27. "Labor not for the meat which perisheth." Lk. 17: 29. "But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all." What did he do then, Mr. Chair

man? He sent fire and brimstone to destroy them. What was the effect upon the Sodomites? The waves of the Dead Sea roll over them. Is the fire following their spirits somewhere now, burning them up, and yet not burning them at all? Nay, the waves of the Dead Sea now roll over them.

Lk. 17: 27. "They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all;" Here is apollumi again. We now get the use of the word as applied to the unconverted. We find no lexicographer who defines apollumi as representing suffering. 1 Cor. 1: 19. "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Does he mean he will torment the wisdom of the wise?

"There shall not a hair of your head perish."

"But

"Perish" is from the same word. We will give one more example. Matt. 22: 7. when the King heard thereof, he was wroth; and he sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers and burned up their city." My friend says the words does not mean torment. The point is settled then accordiug to his own admission.

My authority, he says, is all from destructionists. The authorities we have quoted are Gesenius, Parkhurst, Roy, Pick, which are standard Hebrew Lexicographers; and Greenfield, Donnegan, Liddell and Scott, standard Greek. Are these Destructionists ? We have not introduced a single definition from destructionists.

Next, he ridicules the idea of "double destruction." That is a Bible expression. Mr. Chairman, the wicked, as we shall find, are to die the "second death," or experience a "double destruction."

My opponent lays down, what he conceives to be, an important proposition. That "eternal destruction before resurrection, cuts off the idea of life to come." We have not said a word about eternal destruction before the resurrection, but have been showing simply the meaning of the word destroy, that it does not signify torment. If he will be patient, we shall prove eternal destruction, before we close the discussion.

My friend says, we can burn the body, but not the spirit. He says he proved last night that man has an immortal spirit. The passage with which he endeavored to prove it, was 1 Pet. 3: 4. It reads: “But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." His point is on the phrase "not corruptible." He claims this should be rendered immortal. Did "the holy women" adorn themselves with an immortal spirit? If so, it shows they did not have it before. We know of no immortal spirit with which we can adorn ourselves but the Holy Spirit of God; which leads to "a meek and quiet spirit," or disposition. We think it will require much "twisting and turning" to prove from this passage, that man has naturally an immortal spirit in him.

He says he does not believe that God will consume the soul. We quoted a passage which says, "The Lord....shall consume. 1834 BOTH Soul