DISCUSSION IN CHARLOTTE, MICH.
By Uriah Smith
WHEN the advocates of a new and living faith go forth to arouse a formal church and careless world to present truth and present duty, experience thus far has shown it to be the rule, that the representatives of the popular theology will rise in the fancied strength of those errors and traditions which are gray with the dust of antiquity, and endeavor to repel the innovators by whom they are so rudely shaken. To this rule the late effort of Brn. Hull and Loughborough with the tent in Charlotte, Mich., has proved no exception. Truth, here as elsewhere, in its promulgation came into inevitable conflict with certain doctrines which are at once the offspring and relics of paganism and the dark ages. This, the public champions of these doctrines were of course unable to brook, and so with the rallying cry, that "the doctrines of the church are assailed, and strange things are brought to our ears," they came to the rescue of their cherished theories. The Methodist minister of the place entered the lists and threw down the gauntlet in behalf of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Bro Hull accepted the challenge. The following question and preliminaries were agreed upon: PROPOSITION. "Resolved, that the Bible distinctly teaches that man's conscious existence is endless." Eld. J. Jones affirmative, M. Hull negative. The disputants adopted the following rules by which to be governed during the discussion: "Rule 1. Each party to the debate to deliver forty-two half-hour speeches; or the debate may be closed sooner by the mutual consent of the parties. "Rule 2. That affirmative to have the opening speech. His forty-second speech to be given one-half before the negative's last speech, and his remaining fifteen minutes to close the discussion. "Rule 3. The rules of Hedge's Logic, pp. 159-162, to be followed in this discussion. "Rule 4. Each party to this debate to choose a moderator, and the two so chosen to choose a third, who shall act as president of the meetings. "Rule 5. The debate to commence Tuesday morning, July 1, at 9 o'clock. "Rule 6. There shall be no publication of this debate without the consent of the parties. "(Signed) Joseph Jones, Moses Hull. "Charlotte, June 24, 1862." As there is to be, according to the sixth rule above given, no publication of the debate without the consent of the parties, I shall not even give a synopsis of the arguments used, of which I have extensive phonographic notes, but speak of this theological engagement merely as a spectator on the field of conflict. It would naturally be supposed that a person in forty-two half-hour speeches would be able to give a most thorough and extensive exposition of the immortality question. The affirmative, contrary to the wishes and judgment of the other side, insisted that he could not get out his evidence in any less than that number of speeches. Another fact should be mentioned in this connection. He had made his boasts that the annihilationists, as he unjustly terms us, have just about such a course to pursue, so much ground to go over, and so much evidence to present, and then their "tape" would all be run out, and they could go no further. His intention was to exhaust the negative in about three days, and have the rest of the time to present positive evidence for his side of the question. In view of all these claims, what will be the surprise of the reader to learn that in his forty-two speeches he occupied the full half-hour allotted to him scarcely a half-dozen times, some of his speeches being only fifteen minutes in length, one ten, and another nine! It was many times evident upon which side the scarcity of "tape" existed, and this was the more striking on account of the braggart claims put forth by that side. If Eld. J. really supposed that but a limited amount of testimony could be produced in favor of the unconsciousness of the dead and destruction of the wicked, he had that misapprehension most effectually corrected. Let another fact be noticed, namely, the point-blank departure from all just principles of disputation, as set forth in Rule 2, giving to the affirmative the closing speech. This advantage was strenuously claimed by that side. And when Bro. Hull inquired if he could have the same privilege if he would so word the question as to take the affirmative himself, it was peremptorily denied. Such means in the eyes of the honest and unbiassed, can but be prejudicial to any cause in behalf of which they are employed. It has been asked why Bro. Hull would consent to enter the discussion upon such terms. The answer is, Because truth can afford not only to be fair, but even to surrender some of its positive rights, when error in trembling consciousness of its own innate weakness, is unwilling to enter into the engagement without them. Preliminaries being thus arranged, the discussion commenced as per appointment, Tuesday morning, July 1, at 9 o'clock, and continued, Sabbath and Sunday excepted, with three sessions daily, till Wednesday noon, July 9th. It had not continued half this length of time, had not the moderators, fortunately or unfortunately, been the most lenient persons in the world. It will be borne in mind that according to the wording of the proposition under discussion, the disputants should have confined themselves exclusively to the Bible testimony on the question, and yet for the first two days the affirmative scarcely referred to the Bible at all, but frittered away the precious time of the audience in presenting the philosophical argument, man's immateriality, &c., the assumed universal belief of mankind upon this question, and the inborn desire of all men for immortality. As it was the duty of the negative to follow him, though he went everywhere but where the question called upon him to go, Bro. Hull promptly met all these arguments by showing that every philosophical argument that would go to show man immortal, would apply with equal force to beasts; and so, proving too much, prove nothing. He showed that the supposed universal belief of mankind in the immortality of the soul was not true in fact, it being positively contradicted by even the fragments of history that have come down to us from ancient times. And as for the desire of all men for immortality, the argument is defective in two particulars; for the desires which all men have are not for existence in itself considered, but for happiness, which the advocates of immortality do not believe they will all receive, any more than we; and second, it must be shown that all men have what they desire, before their desires for immortality will have a feather's weight in proving that they have it. An effort was made on the part of the affirmative to throw odium upon the advocates of man's mortality, by claiming that they degrade man to a level with the brute. But when it was shown that every argument used in behalf of man proves just as much for the brute, "Oh," says Eld. J., "we do not degrade mankind to a level with the brute, but we bring the brute up to a level with mankind." A profound distinction truly, and one which cannot fail to be appreciated by all! It will not be necessary here to even name the points which Eld. J. endeavored to make in favor of his position, or as objections to ours. The reader will find them all, and as many more, stated and answered in almost any of our published works upon this subject. I will name two items only. 1. The argument of Eld. Jones upon the case of Saul and the woman of Endor, was precisely the argument by which modern spiritualism is sustained. Bro. H. pressed him closely upon this, and showed by unmistakable points of identity that according to Eld. J.'s position upon that scripture, he was beyond dispute, in theory a spiritualist. But Eld. J. does not like to be proved a spiritualist, and how was he to show that he was not one? Here was the pinch. He could not do it by anything in his theory; for that is the very foundation of spiritualism; and yet it must somehow be done. There was no other way, at least he probably conceived of no other, but to heap vituperation and abuse upon the spiritualists personally, a treatment which, in his extremity, he was not slow to bestow upon them, and of which he was by no means sparing in amount. This blindfold sally had one most decided effect, and that was to alienate from him personally, if not theoretically, many of the most respectable and influential citizens of the place. 2. To show how studiously Eld. Jones avoided coming to the question at issue, I will state that only two passages were brought from the Bible to prove the unending existence of the wicked, and these were not produced till the very last session of the debate. But until he came to these texts he had not come to the point; for the question had reference to the endless conscious existence of man; and though it could be shown from the Bible that there is a part of man that is left in a conscious state after death, this fact would by no means prove its endless existence. The first of these texts was Matt. xxv, 46, and the second was 2 Thess. i, 9, which beats the very brains out of his interpretation of the first. But the inquiry will here arise, what has become of that class of texts which are usually so promptly forthcoming on this point? Where is the rich man and Lazarus, the never-dying worm, the quenchless fire, the torment day and night forever and ever, &c., &c.? Is Orthodoxy growing distrustful of its strong holds, and shivering with fear within its ancient ramparts? Considering that these texts were all passed by, the reader may judge how the time was occupied during the long debate of six days and a half. For a man to insist that he could not produce his evidence in any less than forty-two half-hour speeches, and call upon the community to attend upon his efforts day after day at this busy season of the year, and then fail in almost every instance to fill up his time, to avoid the question, and occupy the hours in the most tedious repetition, winding up and drawing out his "tape" for the fifth or sixth time, was considered by many nothing more nor less than an imposition upon the community. With a due adherence to the proposition, four evenings would have furnished ample time for a full discussion of the subject. Why their patience was taxed for a longer period than this, the people fully understand. But the discussion closed up at last. The six days and a half finally expired. The forty-two speeches on each side were at length all made. And what was the result? Whatever had been done in favor of orthodoxy, and against the truth, was invisible to the naked eye. Truth came off unscathed from the conflict. Bro. Hull had liberty, and clearly showed upon which side the truth lay. A good work is begun in Charlotte, which can but be aided by this effort against it. Ten have been baptized, and further reports of the progress of truth will doubtless come from there soon. U. S.