The gentleman says he introduced a passage to prove" that God will destroy the soul." But I deny that any such passage has been introduced in this discussion. It is true, he introduced a passage where the disciples are warned to "fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. But he brought up no passage to prove that "God will destroy the soul." But suppose he proves that God will destroy the soul, it will amount to nothing so far as proving his proposition is concerned, unless he can show that this destruction means eternal extinction of being.And that, I affirm, he can never do...

I remarked in my first speech that I presumed my opponent would claim that extinction of being is a punishment of loss; and my anticipation was realized in the gentleman's last speech. He says "death" by which he means extinction of being "is a loss;" and he appeals to the audience, and asks if death would not be a loss to them. I will tell you, my friends, upon what hypothesis death would be a loss to us: upon the supposition that there is something conscious after death to experience the loss. But upon my opponent's hypothesis, that death is an utter extinction of being; it can be no loss at all; for there is nothing left to be conscious of any loss. A non-entity cannot suffer loss.

The gentleman says the punishment of the wicked will not begin till they are dead," and when they are dead they are blotted out of existence; consequently there can be no punishment of the wicked.

But let us look at the gentleman's position that death is an extinction of being. I have proved to you that there is an intelligent spirit in man, that survives the dissolution of the body. This spirit, then, is one of the elements of man, and the body is the other. Now I affirm that death does not extinguish either of these elements. Here, we will say, is a dead man; the spirit has taken its departure; and the body is here before us in perfect form; it is dead, but it is not extinguished; the hands and feet are here, but they are cold and motionless; the eyes are here, but they are closed; here is all the form of the man as perfect as it was in life; and yet death has taken its effect, has exhausted its power upon him. Death is, therefore, not an extinction of being. So far from extinguishing the spirit, it does not even extinguish the body. If it did, we never should see a corpse. It would disappear in non-existence the moment death had taken its effect. This makes it plain that whatever death may be, it is not an extinction of being.

My friend said he was glad to hear me admit that Adam and his posterity are mortal. I do not know why he should be glad of that; for certainly I never denied it; and I never saw a man in his senses who did. I believe most fully that mankind are subject to death. I have seen too many evidences of mortality to doubt that fact. But what I deny is, that death is an extinction of being. I have shown in this discussion that it is a dissolution-a separation of the body and spirit. But my opponent claims that it is an extinction of being. He has, however, given us another definition of the word; and I want to call the attention of the audience to this fact, as one of considerable importance in this discussion. "Death, he says, is the extinction of life." Consequently, it is

not the extinction of being. There is a difference between the extinction of being and the extinction of life; and consequently, the gentleman cannot hereafter bring up the word "death" to prove extinction of being for according to his own definition, it means only the extinction of life.I wish the audience to bear this in mind. Apollumi is the word rendered "destroy," "perish," "lost," "cast away," &c.; and I affirm that it never means eternal extinction of being. No Lexicon has ever so defined it. I challenge the gentleman to the proof of this; or that any word employed to express the punishment of the wicked is ever defined to mean the external extinction of being. My opponent must prove that the words employed do mean this, before he can claim them as proof of his proposition. I will now read a few passages from the Bible to show how the word apollumi, translated destroy," "perish," "lost," "lose," &c., is employed by the sacred writers.

Gen. 20 4. "But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation ?? In the Septuagint the word here translated slay is apollumi. Hence it means simply to slay or kill.

Deut. 11: 4. "And what he did unto the army of Egypt, unto their horses, and their chariots; how He made the waters of the Red Sea to everflow them as they persued after you; and how the Lord hath destroyed them unto this day." Here the word is applied to a temporal calamity, the destruction of Pharoah and his host, with their horses and chariots.

Est. 48. Also he gave him the copy of the writing of the decree that was given at Shushan to destroy them, to show it unto Esther, and to declare it unto her, and to charge her that she should go in unto the King, and make supplication unto him, and to make request before him for her people." In this passage the word "destroy" is applied to thei Jews in the Persian empire. A decree had been issued that they should all be slain on a certain day. Hence, it has reference to a temporal destruction.

Est. 9: 15. For the Jews in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and slew three hundred men at Shushan; but on the prey they laid not their hands." In this verse and the one following the word is translated "slew." Will my opponent claim that this means eternal extinction of being?

1

Job 5: 21-22. "Thou shalt be hid from the scourge of the tongue; neither shalt thou be afraid of the destruction when it cometh. At de struction and famine thou shalt laugh; neither shalt thou be afraid of the beasts of the earth.".

Job 9: 22. "This is one thing, therefore, I said it, he destroyeth the perfect and the wicked." Eccl. 7: 15. "All things have I seen in the days of my vanity; there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness; and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness." In these passages the words "destroyeth" and "perisheth" are applied to the righteous; and hence if they prove the eternal destruction of the wicked, they prove the eternal destruction of the righteous also. But they are used to indicate simply temporal death, as is evident from the

17

fact that they stand in contrast with natural life. "There is a righteous man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness."

Psalm 119: 196. "I have gone astray like a lost sheep seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments." Here the word apollumi is rendered "lost" and David applies it to himself while he is yet living. It cannot therefore mean extinction of being.

Isa. 57: 1. "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart; and merciful men are taken away; none considering that the righteous are taken away from the evil to come." In this passage the word "perisheth" is defined by the phrase "taken away," which is used interchangably with it; and it means simply natural death

Jer. 7: 28. "But thou shalt say unto them; this is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the Lord their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth. Here the word "perish" is used in the sense of destitution or absence. The persons spoken of are destitute of truth; it "is cut off from their mouth." According to my opponents definition of the word, truth is enternally extinguished! Jer. 48: 8. And the spoiler shall come upon every city, and no city shall escape; the valley also shall perish and the plain shall be destroyed as the Lord hath spoken." Here it is said the valley shall perish, and the plain be destroyed. Does this mean that the valley and the plain shall both be blotted out of existence? or does it mean that they shall be desolate ?

Jer. 50: 6, "My people have been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their resting place. In this passage the word apollumi is translated lost; and is applied to the people of God while they are still living. It is defined in the connection to mean "turned away upon the mountains," just as sheep are when they are lost. Hence it cannot mean extinction of being.

Lam. 2: 11. "Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured out upon the earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city." Here the word "destruction" is applied to the dispersion and captivity of the Jews as a nation; called "the destruction of the daughter of my people." Were they blotted out of existence? I think

not.

Ezek. 34: 4. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was brok en, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them." Here again we have "lost" as a translation of apollumi; and it is applied to those who are still in being. The rulers are chided for not seeking that which was lost. According to my opponent, they were chided for not seeking non-entitios.

Micab. 7: 2. The good man is perished out of the earth; and there is none upright among men; they all lie in wait for blood, they hunt every

man his brother with a net. My opponent cannot rely on this passage to prove his doctrine; for it proves that the righteous man has " perished" as well as the wicked.

Matt. 10: 6. But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt. 15: 24. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." In these passages we have the word apollumi translated "lost," and it applies to the Jews who were then living in Palestine; consequently it cannot mean extinction of being. According to my opponent's definition of this word, the disciples were commanded to go to non-entities! [Time expired.]

THIRD SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:

We see scarcely anything in the passages of Scripture which have been brought forward, to which we would wish to reply. It seems all in harmony with the position we have taken. We never claimed that simply to destroy meant to destroy eternally. Our point has been to show that to destroy does not mean to torment-to keep in indescribable agony. But we shall find the use of these words to-morrow evening when we come into the New Testament, as well as the Old.

We think the gentleman's last remark has been fired into the air. We have not felt it. We have seen no point to reply to. He says this is the old Universalist preaching. The Universalists may have some truth as well as other people. We like to treat all kindly, as men. He says we make the character of God ridiculous; but admits, if God made some men to damn them, perhaps it would be so. Let me read a little from popular writers. (Mr. CLAYTON objected.)

He says: "God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked." We are glad to have him quote that passage. We remarked that when a man kills his dog which is in pain, it is an act of mercy; so when God takes the life of a miserable sinner. Says the Lord, "Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die?" "I have no picasure in the death of the wicked-turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die?" He does not desire to destroy the wicked, but it is the very best he can do. They are miserable while they live. The society of the righteous is a burden to them. They have "no peace." There is nothing in them lovely, or good; and, Mr. Chairman, we hold it is a merciful act, combined with justice, and love, to put them out of misery. As eternal life is the highest possible reward that can be given to us, the op posite, or eternal death, is the highest possible punishment. My opponent has been arguing a long time to show that loss of life is no punishment.We repeat, when a man has lost his life, he has lost all. "The wages of sin is death." Does death mean eternal woe? Let him prove it, before he calls upon us to believe it.

Suppose that when the Judge passed sentence of death upon John Brown, he had explained the word death to his executioner, as follows:"This means torment the man as much as you can; consequently, be care

ful not to take his life; but torment him all he can bear without taking it.” Who would accept such a defiinition of death. What is death? Webster defines it "A total cessation of all the vital functions." Death is the extinction of life. Let my friend prove that death is the continuation of life, and then he may have some ground for argument. He represents us as believing that the Sodomites are eternally destroyed. We have not ar gued any such thing. They are to come to judgment and be punished

with eternal destruction.

Again he says, "a non-entity can feel no loss." We have not claimed that it can; but is it no loss for a conscious, intelligent being to be put into non-entity? He remarks that it is clear that death is not an extinction of being. To us, sir, such an idea is as clear as mud. My brother seems to confound the first and second death. To-morrow evening we shall find that punishment constitutes the second death. When a being is dead he is not in torment. He repeats again that Adam and his posterity became mortal. How will they become immortal? "By patient continuence in well doing." Which part is to be immortal? The body? or the spirit? It is that part which can do right or wrong; and according to my friend's opinion that is the spirit; as the body is only n house for the accountable part to live in, and hence is not a moral being.

He says we have not brought anything to show that the soul will be destroyed. "Consume both soul and body." "Destroy both soul and body." What does he say to these passages? He says we give a difinition of death. No sir, the Lexicographers give the definition. That is like people saying. "Mr. Grant says so," when he only quotes Scripture.

He says, "Apollumi means loss. True. When a thing is "totally destroyed," where is it? When a man is "totally destroyed," or lost, is he then living and active? He says the Hebrews use it of persons slain in battle. We do not see how this view conflicts with our position; on the contrary, it confirms it. We will give the definition of Apollumi, as found in the Analytical Greek Lexicon, a very able work. To destroy utterly, to kill, to bring to nought." These are the primary definitions of the word-not our definition. When a thing is utterly destroyed, it is certainly lost. A number of assertions were made, which we pass unnoticed. We do not see anything else which requires revision.

We will now introduce another passage for consideration, in 2 Thess. 1: 8-9. "Taking vengence on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." Here comes the answer to the question of Peter, "What shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God." Dr. Benson says: "The wicked shall be punished with everlasting preservation, in indiscribable agony." Quite a contrast between him and Paul. Says Henry, in his Commentary, "By the damration of the wicked, the justice of God will be eternally satisfying, but never satisfied." Then of course, they will never be punished; they will always be in advance of justice. But Paul says they shall be punished with everlasting destruction." From what source? "From the presence of the Lord." Does everlasting 'destruction mean they are to be everlastingly preserved? The word here rendered

66