The Final Destiny of the Wicked
By H. F. PHELPS.
2. Do the Scriptures teach that the final destiny of the wicked is destruction? Eld. I. affirms, and Eld. G. denies. Rules of Debate. 1. The opening speech may cover one hour. 2. The reply the same time. 3. Each succeeding speech thirty minutes. 4. This debate shall continue until both parties have brought out all their main evidence, and close by the mutual consent of both disputants. This last clause was stricken out, because Eld. G. said he should not be compelled to stay there six months. As the sequel proved, he wished for a chance to fire a few guns, and then dodge, without waiting to receive any shot in return, for fear of being hit. Previous to the debate, he said he could say all he had to say in three hours; this, according to the rules, would consume, as the evenings were short, six evenings of one hour each. But the Elder so condensed his arguments as to consume but one-half hour, then said he was done, the discussion was closed. But after much urging, and being convinced that his reputation was at stake, he agreed to come one more evening. He stated in public, that if convinced of an error he would acknowledge it, and if Eld. I. should bring any arguments he could not answer, he would own that too. He said he went into the discussion with all honesty of purpose, to do good and to get good. But notwithstanding these broad assertions, he never noticed even one of Eld. I.'s arguments, saying that the affirmative of a question was not obliged to notice the arguments of the negative! The discussion began by prayer and singing, after which Eld. G. occupied one-half hour, presenting first his arguments from science, then passing on to the Bible, bringing up such arguments as the calling up of Samuel, thief on the cross, our earthly house, Peter's tabernacle, Paul's desire to depart, &c. Then closed by a broad assertion, that time would fail him if he should attempt to bring all the proof that might be brought from the Scriptures, and sat down. Eld. I. said he would begin where the Elder left off, and review him backward, noticing his Bible arguments first, nearly all of which we omit, as most of the readers of the Review are well acquainted with them. We will notice first his argument from Luke xxiii, 43, or, thief on the cross. He defined Paradise as meaning, sometimes, Heaven, sometimes hades, and sometimes the garden of Eden. Says, Christ did not go to Heaven; for he says to Mary, “touch me not; for I have not yet ascended to my Father,” and did not ascend till many days were expired. In this instance, Paradise means hades. Defines hades as an intermediate state, a place for the good. Says that Christ and the thief were in hades. Eld. I. Showed that Paradise was the garden of Eden; that Paradise is now located where the tree of life is; that the tree of life is in the city, the New Jerusalem; that the throne of God is in the city; and that Paradise never means hades. Now as Eld. G. believes what Christ said, that he had not yet ascended to his Father, therefore it follows, that they went into the grave or hades. Gives proof that hades means the grave, and then quotes Eccl. ix. 5, 6, 10, to show the condition of those in hades. “But the dead know not anything neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy is now perished, . . . for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave (hades) whither thou goest.” So no part of Christ or the thief were conscious in hades. Again Eld. G. brings an argument from Paul, where he speaks of soul, body and spirit. Defines body as gross matter, soul, as electricity, spirit, the mind of man. Eld. I. Soul is not electricity, substitutes the word electricity for soul in contrast. Ezek. xviii, 4. “Behold all souls are mine, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine, the soul that sinneth it shall die.” See the contrast, “Behold all ‘electricities’ are mine, as the ‘electricity’ of the father so also the ‘electricity’ of the son is mine, the ‘electricity’ that sinneth it shall die.” Eld. G. says spirit is the mind of man. Well, thoughts come from an active mind, and “thoughts perish.” See Ps. cxlvi, 4, therefore the mind must cease to act. Eld. G. Quotes Gen. ii, 7. Said the original was “breath of lives,” meaning spiritual and animal; that man was in possession of two lives; the animal or natural life, and a spiritual or inner life, which he claimed was immortal. Eld. I. Agrees with the gentleman that the original “breath of lives” is correct; that it does not mean two lives in one man, but the “breath of lives” of all animals, all creatures in possession of life, and further, that they are all subject to death. Quotes Gen. vii, 21, 22, where it says that all flesh that moveth, both of fowl, of cattle, of beast, and every creeping thing, and every man, and all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, died. Eld. G. Asserts that eternal death is a continuation of the first death. Eld. I. If eternal death is a continuation of the first death, what is the second death? The second death cannot begin until the first death ends. He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. Rev. ii, 11. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath no power. Chap. xx, 6. Eld. G. Quotes Gen. ii, 17. “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Adam died a spiritual death the very day he ate of the tree of life, and not literally that day. Natural death followed. Spiritual death was the penalty for disobedience. Christ died in the stead of Adam, suffered the penalty due, died a spiritual death. Referred to the Father's leaving Christ at the cross. He also said a separation from God, or spiritual death, implied an extinction of righteousness and holiness. Eld. I. Replied, 1. That the penalty of the original law was not spiritual or moral death, because, 1. Spiritual death is a state of sin and no punishment. 2. It would confound the crime with the penalty, and would be literally saying to the man, because you have sinned, therefore I pronounce you a sinner. 3. If spiritual death is the penalty, and Christ suffered the full penalty of the law, it follows that Christ died a spiritual death, which is to be dead in trespasses and sins, and would show that he was a sinner, and give the word of God the lie, for it says in him is no sin. 4. If spiritual death was the penalty of the law, and that never is to be changed, it contradicts the word of God, which teaches that the sinner must suffer the second death. The penalty of the law was literal death. Gen. iii, 17; Rom. v, 12; 1 Cor. xv, 21; John xi, 25. Refers to the testimony of A. Clarke. 2. If, as the Elder says, spiritual death implies extinction of holiness, it follows that Christ there became a sinner, which is false; for in him was no sin. Eld. G. Quotes Job iv, 18, 19, as a strong text. Verse 19. “How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay,” &c. Says, to dwell implies intelligence, and is never applied to anything that has not intelligence. From this he reasons that there is a something in man that has intelligence, and hence is immortal. Eld. I. The gentleman is to prove that man lives outside of his body, in a conscious state, and this he has failed to do, for the dead know not anything. We will now notice his arguments which he brought from science, arguments which he claimed were original with himself, having never seen them in any books, or even heard them mentioned, hence he alone was responsible. First he inquires, What is man? What does science teach? What does the Bible teach? Refers to individuals in the clairvoyant state. Claims he has the best of the argument here. Thinks it sure proof that mind can act outside of organism, and still he said that clairvoyants were not always to be relied upon. Eld. I. Instead of proving that the mind can act outside of human organism, out of the body, it proves that the operator cannot control the mind without first controlling the body, and if the body cannot be governed and brought under the influence of the operator, the mind cannot be controlled at all; and this proves that the mind does not act outside of organism, for the mind still lives, and the brain still acts. Eld. G. Brain does not produce matter. Eld. I. Can a man think without brains? The dead know not anything. Eccl. ix, 4. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Ps. cxlvi, 4. Eld. G. Mind cannot take hold of matter, but mind can take hold of electricity, and electricity moves matter. Eld. I. What is electricity? The operation of a very subtle fluid. What is fluid? A liquid substance. Hence electricity is matter, and if mind takes hold of electricity, it moves matter, and this proves the assertion of Eld. Gates to be altogether erroneous. We have now noticed all the main points in his arguments, and will close by giving a few incidents in connection with the debate. As before stated, Eld. G. consented to come the second evening, and so he did, but presented no new argument. In fact, we failed to see any argument at all, although he claimed that he was strictly to the point. His whole half hour was spent in a lecture on mesmerism, telling what he had seen done, what he had done, what he could do, and finally what he could teach others to do. This proved, he thought, the very point in question. Eld. I. followed him, noticing his arguments from science, which were presented the evening previous; then presented many texts of scripture to show that the dead know not anything; that they exercise no power of mind; that the lamp (spirit) of the wicked will be put out. That man is mortal, God alone possessing inherent immortality; and finally that immortality will be given to the righteous as a gift. At this point the Eld. jumped up, calling the gentleman to order. One of the moderators requested him to remain quiet, and not interrupt. But he insisted that the gentleman was out of order, because immortality was not the subject, and wished the gentleman to confine himself to the question as to whether the spirit of man could or could not exist outside of organism. Eld. I. Said he knew the word immortal was not in the proposition; that he was satisfied the Elder objected to the word, for the purpose of having a place to dodge; but he would ask him one question that would forever settle the point. Turning to Eld. G. he asked, Do you believe the soul is immortal? Most heartily I do, replied he. Eld. I. proceeded, and proved conclusively the points he introduced, and brought a few texts to prove that the wicked would finally be destroyed, reasoning, confidently, that if they were finally destroyed, they could not be possessed of immortality. Time was called, and he sat down. Eld. G. Wished to make a few remarks, not by way of reply, but wished to say, that as he had been listening to the gentlemen, he could not help thinking, that the congregation must think he was being used as a stool pigeon; explained the use of a stool pigeon to entice others into the snare; and as for being held there evening after evening, and being made use of in any such way, he could not, and would not stand it any longer, therefore he wished it understood that the debate was closed. And thus it closed without his noticing one argument brought by the negative, and without coming at all to the second proposition. Eld. I. Remarked that he considered it an out and out back out. We conclude the congregation were of nearly the same opinion; for as the Elder sat down, an attempt was made to cheer him; but it was very faintly responded to. That this little skirmish will be the means of doing good, we firmly believe. The cause may move slowly, but it will be sure. Brethren everywhere, pray for the cause in Minnesota; and brethren in Minn., pray earnestly for the cause here in your midst, and especially that the good seed sown here, may not be altogether lost, but that a people may yet be brought out who shall be prepared for the coming of Christ.