The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1877-11-17

luck follow yez all your days and never
oVertAke yes" ] am yours, &c,
JAMES CUNSINGHASl, in,
---a---
Prof. PendietOn Mt MOrgantOWn.
MoRsASrowN, Nov. Is, 1877.
Editors In.sllGeneSr
Quite q large audience was present this
evening at the University 10 hear the
lecture previously announced b. Hon.
W. X. Pendleton. The subject which the
gentleman discussed was "The Immortal.
ity OF Paul and Plato" or q comparison Of
tho views held by these two men on the
Immortality OF the soul. To say that the
address was good would, In the present
days custom Of using Gdjeetives to ex.
cess, inSdequately express its value. The
gentleman spoke one hour and five min.
utes, but the time seemed not half SO long.
Not being short hand writer We cannot
give your readers the benefit Of il entire,
and must content ourselves with giving n
very brief, crude and faulty summary Of
it. The gentleman's language was very
superior and the address was full Of worry
beautiful and striking sentences. The
following resume" may give faint con-
ciption Of the general idea and outline
OF the lecture:
When disputed withsuch az would
give him attention In Athens some Raid
ie was setter forth Of strange doctrines;
m advocate Of strange God, Socrates,
four hundred years before, had been con.
demned for th0 same otlebSs, that Of ad.
vocaiing unsonnd views in reference to
the Deity. The accusations against both
Paul and Socrates were false, although
they seemed eminently true to those who
made them. Paul's doctrine was foolish
ness to the Greek and was scoiled at by
tho StoicS and Epicureans. There are
StOics and Epicureans at the present day.
The resurrection ia the foundation Of the
doctrines Of the Christian Church. Hence
Paul's persistent advocacy Of its truth.
he realized It's Importance. He gloried
in the fact that this corfuptible should
put onfncOrruptible. This thought sus.
iaiued him as Il Bustains the weary Chris.
tiRn at the present day. Paul's proof Of
the doctrine Of the resurrection was Of a
two.iold character, viz: effectively, based
on the evidence OF those numbers who
saw Christ in person after the resurrec.
lion, incluhing himself also; and subject.
irsly tho evidence that he had that Christ
had arisen because BE was in his
own heart: he had Christ within
him. It was for this subjective eyi.
denca that paul was willing 10 count sll
else as nsught. This was even stronger
proof to Paul Of the resurrection than
the evidence OF the senses. II was Ger.
tain knowledge and could not be gain.
saved. Why was this doctrine so offensive
to the Sadducees, Pharisees and Greeks =?
In regard to the Sadducees they believed
not 10 the resurrection OF the soul; hence
1t ia evident why it was distaSteful to
them. But both the Pharisees and the
Greeks believed in the resurrection. The
Greek religion was very crude, neverthe.
less they had lnculcated the doctrine OF
the resurrection into it. Plato had writ.
ten much upon it and it had been dis-
cussed Mt Athens until there was nothing
new could be said upon it. But the dit.
ference between PSuls and Plato's rca.
Boniugs was that tho former BASED his
argument on the subjective evidence
while the latter knew only to reason
from the analogy OF nature and from 4
physical point Of view. The body, ac-
Cording to Plato, was compounded and
hence could be divided aud destroyed,
but tho soul was simple and could not be
destroyed. But this is not conclusive;
the soul may be simple, aud hence not
divisiblc, yet it may gradually grow less
and at last cease to exist, Just Ns coz.
sciousuess and the other faculties OF the
mind may grow less and be entirely de-
stroyed. Plato also reasons that anything
so beautifully made cannot be destroyed.
We can reason in the same way in regard
TO the body, yet we know that the body IL
destroyed. We know God destroys our
bodies, hence, from this argument, it
would not do TO say that He cannot de.
stroy our souls. There ia no proof Of the
Immortality OF tho soul in any OF Plato's
arguments. They only present a negs-
tvs possibility and probability. Paul
exercised none Of llato's arguments.
Plato taught that the soul itself could by
native force raise itself up TO favor with
God. Paul said that man was fallen
being and could only be justified through
Jesus Christ. Paul's conception Of
man was that he is creature
of God allied in body to earth, IN spirit
to God. That originally man was de.
pendent, and that the condition OF his life
or Immortality was the refraining from
the forbidden fruit Of tho tree OF know
ledge Of good and evil. That man fell
and could now be saved only through
Christ. In astronomy we are taught that
planets are held in their position by the
balance action Of the centrifugal and con.
tripetal forces; remove one and the planet
would dart of into darkness farther and
farther from its original position. So
with the human soul; destroy but its In
nocency and it begins course at once
into the darkness OF sin. Such was the
case with man. hit be asked what bodies
we shall have after resurrection we find
that Paul answers by analogy. The
seed being placed in the earth decays
there spsiDgs up beautiful plant. We
know not what body we shall have, but
We know that it shall be new. II will
be ireo from the sting Of death and from
the victory Of the grave. 1t will be free
from the curse Of matter in ia present
state, and will be Of the highest form that
it is conceivable that material matter
should assume. And the new body and
spirit will harmonic according 10 the
glorious principle of liberty.
Prof. Peudleton closed his address amid
great applause, after which President
Thompson publicly thanked him, and
asked him to some time publish an argu.
ncut in favor OF the Immortality OF the
soul. Thenext lecture OF this series will
he delivered on the 9th Of December, by
Charles Davies, OF Jefferson county.