CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 4115, 14 September 1883, Page 3

CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY.

Debate between Messrs. G. A. Brown and B. Hutson.

This debate was continued last night in the Theatre Royal, Mr E. Carr (in the nbsonce of Cr. Thompson) presiding. Tho attend ance was much larger than usual. Mr Brown opened by explaining tho distinct point of disagreement betweon himself and his opponent as to the composition of man, and by asking him for a definition of that part. of the human . entity which he called immortal. Ho also reminded' Mr Hutsou of his references to the eternal torment of. the. .wicked, and taxed him with believing in " tho eternal roasting business," notwithstanding his disavowal of it. Mr Brown then wont on to give his interpretation of various passages, such as " absent from tho body," " present with the Lord," and tho eternal and unforgivable sin spoken of in the 12th chapter of Matthew, besides shewing that Paul's teaching did not favour the doctrine of an immortality apart from Christ. Ho said that Mr Hutson had about 15 passages in tho New Testament, and ono or two in tho Old Testament that might be termed inferential passages, but he himself guaranteed to produce nearly 1,000 passages of Scripture telling of man's nature, man's mortality, and man's destruction in death, against thoso other 15. He asked whether it were moro reasonahle to ask him to hannonmonise the 1,000 with the 15 or tho 15 with the 1,000, and tho latter he was prepared to do.. Ho defied any man in Auckland, however, to harmonise tho 1,000 with the 15. Mr Brown then went on to deal with Matthew 10—28, substituting the word "gehenna"for "hell." Mr Hutson quoted from "Tho Confession of Faith" to indicate the character of his belief as to the punishment of the wicked, which ho held to be " an everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God." He also cited Christ's declaration about those who go down to hell, "whore their worm dietii not, and the fire is not quenched." He denied that Mr Brown had found out any inconsistency in his remarks upon this subject of eternal punishment, and he held that, whereas the Ere that was rained down upon tho people of Sodom and Gomorrah had no power over their immortal souls, neither would an " eternal roasting." In asking him to define this immortal part of man, Mr Brown might just as well ask him to define God, man, or self. They bafiled our comprehension, but we knew that the existed. Mr Brown had told them on the previous night that the physical part of man was the better man—the moro important part of him. Consequently, as a sheep woighod about oOlbs and a man about loOlbs, a man was worth three sheep, but having taken the trouble at Helensville to ascertain that a whtilc weighed 200 or 300 tons, he supposed that, according to Mr Brown's theory, the whole of the assembly that night was not worth one fair-sized whale. (Laughter, applause, and disapprobation.) The speaker went on to argue that the New Testament clearly established a distinction between soul and body. ..,. Mr Brown expressed surprise at the introduction of "the whale business," and denied tbat he had afforded any cause for such a departure from the debate. He then proceeded to explain the uso of the word gehejina, and to shew that the phrase " unquenchable firo " meant nothing more nor less than a firo which could not be put out until it had consumed that which it bad seized upon. Ho denied that the adjective '' eternal" could be used in connection with either of them.

Mr Hutson argued that Christ's mission on earth was to save sinners ; to give men the power to do good, and to found here

His spiritual kingdom, which was Christianity, over which ho would yet como to reign.

The succeeding speeches had reference to the new life, Christ's second coming and the Judgment, Mr Brown holding that Christ's kingdom was a material one to be established on this earth, and Mr Hutson giving the promises on this head a spiritual application.

The debate will conclude to-night.