*»0' 
 
 * »^Wa % <$o ^ ■•* 
 
 
 
 ** .s*&V. 4^-> ;4te +^ rf 
 
 
 'j>v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » *3t~ **^ 
 
 
 ^.' i& 
 
 V 
 
 
 
4^ **> 
 
 
 
 
 v 
 
 
 C ' .^>'°o 
 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
 OF THE DOCTRINE OP 
 
 AND 
 
 PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED; 
 
 BETWEKU 
 
 ELDER W. W. CLAYTON, OF AUBURN, N. Y., 
 
 ELDER M. GRANT, OF BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 Oat the I3renings of ^December 5, 0, 7, 8, slid 0, A. E>,, 1859, 
 
 AT UNION HALL, IN SENECA FALLS. 
 
 PHONOORAPHICALLY REPORTED BY 
 
 FRED. X,_ 3N^LAJST3SniSra-, WATERLOO, X3". Y., 
 
 AND REVISED BY THE PARTIES. 
 
 SENECA FALLS, N. Y.: 
 PUBLISHED BY THOMAS a. NEWMAN. 
 
 1860. 
 

 
 LC Control Number 
 tmp96 028348 
 
DISCUSSION. 
 
 MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 5, 1859. 
 
 Ppoposition. — " When man dies, his spirit remains in a conscious state, sepa- 
 rate from the body, until the resurrection." 
 
 Elder Clayton affirms— Elder Grant denies. 
 
 OPENING SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON. 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 I ani extremely happy, in the good providence of God, to be present 
 with you on this occasion. If is not the first time that I have appeared 
 before you in the capacity of a disputant, to defend, in my feeble way, what 
 understand to be the truth, relative to the future destiny of man. Five 
 years ago this winter, as many of you know, J met in this Hall and upon 
 this platform, Mr. By water, of Auburn, in the discussion of a proposi- 
 tion similar to the one now at issue between myself and Mr. Grant. It 
 was thought at that time, by Mr. By water's friends, that he was not the 
 most competent man that might have been selected to defend the positions 
 of his denomination ; and hence, his generally acknowledged failure was 
 attributed more to his own weakness, than to that of the cause which he 
 advocated. In view of this fact, and that the strength of our respective 
 positions might be thoroughly tested, I expressed my willingness to renew 
 the discussion, whenever occasion should offer, with any gentleman of ac- 
 knowledged ability in the denomination ; and I am happy in being assured 
 that my friend, Mr. Grant, is the man selected ; that he enters into this 
 discussion with the full endorsement of his denomination, as the acknowl- 
 edged champion of their cause — the Magnus Apollo of the unconsciousness 
 of the dead, and the eternal destruction of the wicked. It is with the 
 greater pleasure, therefore, that I enter into this discussion, knowing that 
 I have an able opponent, one who will not fail to subject my propositions 
 to the severest ordeal — the most rigid investigation. Let it be understood, 
 however, that I do not enter into this discussion for the sake of victory, 
 but for the sake of truth. That, indeed, should be the only object of both 
 speakers and hearers ; and I am fully satisfied, that if we engage in this 
 discussion with such an object in view, we cannot fail of being benefited 
 by the investigation. Before entering directly upon the discussion of the 
 question, I propose to make a few remarks by way of explanation and 
 definition. 
 
 1. It will devolve upon me, as the affirmant in the discussion of this 
 first question, to advance affirmative arguments in support of my proposi- 
 tion; while it will be the duty of my opponent to show that these argu- 
 ments are not valid — that they are irrelevant, impertinent, sophistical, or 
 fallacious ; and therefore, that they do not sustain my proposition. 
 
4 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 2. It is of the utmost importance in a discussion like this, that the 
 point at issue should be clearly apprehended. The point in this proposi- 
 tion is, the separate conscious existence of the spirit of man between death 
 and the resurrection. It says : " When man dies, his spirit remains in 
 a conscious state, separate from the body, until the resurrection." 
 
 I will now define in what sense I employ the terms of this proposition. 
 Man is a compound being, in whom matter and spirit are united. Spirit 
 is the conscious, intelligent part of man. To die, is to cease to live, the 
 result of a separation of the body and spirit. To be conscious is to pos- 
 sess the power of knowing ones thoughts. The body is the external or- 
 ganism — the house or tabernacle which the spirit occupies during the 
 present state of being. The resurrection is a restoration to life — the 
 result of a re-union of the body and spirit. 
 
 As the main stress of the argument in the first stages of this debate 
 will probably fall on the meaning of the word spirit, I dee-m it expedient 
 to sustain my defiinition by the testimony of Scripture. In order to 
 maintain my proposition, it will be necessary for me to show, first, that 
 the spirit is an intelligent entity in man ; second, that at death this spirit 
 is separated from the body ; and, third, that it remains in a conscious state 
 of being until the resurrection. I will now attempt to prove these points 
 from Scripture. 
 
 My friend Mr. Grant, in his Tract on the Spirit of Man, sums up all the 
 meanings of the word spirit, under four heads. He says it means, 
 
 1. The air we breathe. 
 
 2. A being, either good or evil. 
 
 3. An influence proceeding from a being. 
 
 4. A state of feeling in any individual. 
 
 He then adds : " We believe that all the examples in the Bible where 
 the words rendered spirit occur, when rightly understood, may be arrang- 
 ed under one of these four heads." 
 
 He finds a class of passages, however, which do not so obviously come 
 under either of these heads ; but he undertakes to bring them under, not- 
 withstanding ; and his effort reminds me of the Irishman's sign over his 
 turning shop : " All sorts of turning and twisting done here." 
 
 I agree with my friend Mr. Grant, that these are four several meanings 
 of the word spirit ; but I .deny that they are the only meanings. It has an- 
 other signification, which is utterly subversive of his whole theory. — 
 It not only means. 1, the air, 2, a being, 3, an influence, 4, a state of feel- 
 ing ; but, 5, an intelligent entity in man. That this is one of its meanings 
 I will now attempt to prove from Scripture. And the first passage that 
 I will introduce, is, Job, 32 : 8. " There is a spirit in man ; and the 
 inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding." This passage 
 clearly proves that there is a spirit in man ; but the question arises, What 
 is that spirit ? It is absurd to suppose that it is either his feelings, his 
 influence, or his breath, for the the following reasons : 1. Such an idea is 
 derogatory to the character of the Bible. It reduces the sublime subjects 
 of revelation to the most insignificant common-place. It amounts to this, 
 that the Bible makes the sublime disclosure, that there is a feeling, an 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 5 
 
 influence, or a breath in man ! Who would not know that without a rev- 
 elation from God? The common observation of every man would teach 
 him as much as that, if he never saw a Bible. The idea that a man may 
 breathe about 800 times every hour of his life, and yet need a revelation 
 from God, to discover the fact that there is a breath in him. is to my 
 mind not merely absurd, but rediculous. 
 
 But the fact that man has within this curiously constructed organism 
 of the body a conscious intelligent spirit, which is the foundation of his 
 knowledge and understanding, would not have been quite so easy of dis- 
 covery. It is, therefore, a" legitimate subject of revelation — a sublime 
 disclosure of the Bible — worth}' of < 'od to give, and of man to receive. 
 
 2. The expression " a spirit"'' 1 mak-'s it an individuality. We can say 
 of man that he has a spirit in him, that is, a single individual spirit; but 
 we cannot say, he has a breath in him; for he has many breaths, about 
 800 every hour of his life. Besides, if a man's breath is his spirit, he 
 has a new spirit every time he breathes ! And which of the.se is his indi- 
 vidual spirit — the first one he breaths, or the last ? If you say all of 
 them, then they are his spirits, and not his spirit. From this conclusion, 
 I do not see how it is possible for any man to escape. 
 
 3. This spirit which is in man comes not from the atmosphere, but from 
 God. It is the result of the inspiration or inbreathing of the Almighty; 
 and the understanding or intelligence of man is predicated of it. It comes 
 from God and goes to God. Soloman says : " Then shall the dust return 
 to the earth as it was, but the spirit to God who gave it." Eec. 12 : 7. 
 According to Mr. Grant's view of the spirit in this passage (that it is the 
 breath of air in a man's nostrils) it ought to read in this way : " Then 
 shall the dust return to the earth as it was, but the spirit into the atmos- 
 phere whence it came." It neither comes from God nor goes to God, 
 therefore, any more than the dust of the body does. Going into the 
 atmosphere is no more going to God than going into the ground is going 
 to God. And it will be difficult, I think, to make intelligent men be- 
 lieve so. 
 
 The next passage that I will introduce is. Zach. 12: 1. <; The bur- 
 den of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, who stretcheth 
 forth the Heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formcth 
 the spirit of man within him." The phrase " spirit of man" in this pass- 
 age can have no reference to the "breath of life,"' for the following 
 reasons : 
 
 1. It is " the spirit of man." But the "breath of life," or the atmos- 
 pheric air, is no more the spirit of man than it is the spirit of the ox or 
 the lobster. It belodgs to all animals alike. 
 
 2. It is formed within man. But the atmospheric air is no more 
 formed within man than the food which he eats, or the water which he 
 drinks. It was formed outside of him, before he came into existence, and 
 is only received into his lungs by the process of breathing. This passage 
 plainly teaches not only that man has a spirit distinct from his body, his 
 feelings, his influence, or his breath, but that that spirit has a form. And 
 this is in perfect harmony with the general sentiment of mankind on the 
 
DISCUSSION ON 
 
 subject, that spirits have forms corresponding with the outlines of the 
 bodies which they inhabit, and that they retain these forms when separa- 
 ted from their bodies. This belief wa3 entertained by a majority of the 
 Jewish nation in the time of Christ, as we learn from Josephus, 
 book 18, chapter 1, and from Acts 23 : 8. 9. " The Sadducees say there is 
 no resurrection, neither angels nor spirits; but the Pharisees confess 
 both." " We find no fault in this man ; but if an angel or a spirit hath 
 spoken to him, let us not fight against God." It cannot be claimed that 
 the spirits spoken of in these passages, are angels, for loth angels and 
 spirits are mentioned, and in such a way as plainly to distinguish them 
 from one another. But we have further evidence of the existence of this 
 belief in Mark 6 : 49, and Luke 24 : 36. The first of these passages 
 reads thus : " But when they saw Jesus walking on the sea, they sup- 
 posed it was a spirit, and cried out. And immediately he talked with 
 them, and said : Be of good cheer, it is I ; be not afraid." The other 
 passage is an account of his appearance after his resurrection, and reads 
 in this wise : " And as they thus spoke, Jesus himself stood in the 
 midst, and said unto them, Peace be unto you ! But they were terrified 
 and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. But he said 
 unto them, Why are you troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your 
 hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I, myself : handle me and 
 see : a spirit hath not- flesh and bones, as ye see me have." 
 
 My opponent may say that it was only a phantasma that the disciples 
 supposed they saw ; but Jesus, when he speaks of it, calls it a pneuma — a 
 spirit ; and gives sanction to the existence of such entities by instituting 
 a comparison between himself and a spirit — " a spirit hath not flesh and 
 bones, as you see me have." If the disciples had been the dupes of a 
 mere superstitious belief in spirits, which had no existence except in the 
 vagaries of an untutored imagination, Jusus certainly would have dissipa- 
 ted the delusion at once, by telling them that they were altogether mista- 
 ken, that no such beings as they supposed they had seen, had any real 
 existence. But he allowed them to be terrified Avith the belief on two 
 successive occasions ; and then sanctioned the existence of spirits in a 
 disembodied state, or without flesh and bones, as he had. 
 
 I have introduced these facts to show that the idea that the human 
 spirit has a form corresponding with the outlines of the physical organ- 
 ism, and that it retains this form when separated from the body, is in har- 
 mony with the general sentiment of mankind, and that it has its founda- 
 tion in truth — being sanctioned by the Great Teacher himself. 
 
 There is another fact of every day occurrence, going to corroborate 
 this position, which I will now introduce. It is the fact that every person 
 who has lost a limb is conscious of sensibility where that limb once was. 
 " This fact," says Dr. Litch, " is sustained by the testimony of hundreds 
 of individuals who have lost members of their bodies ; and I never found 
 an instance of such a person who did not testify to it." Now, if this is 
 the fact, the spirit of man has a form like the body, and is possessed of 
 all the members of the body, but they cannot be severed by any physical 
 instrument. You may cut off limb after limb, till nothing remains but 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 7 
 
 the meinberless trunk — nay, you may cut that trunk into pieces, or grind 
 it to powder ; but you cannot injure the spirit — it remains a perfect whole, 
 complete in all its members, and indestructible, so far as any human agency 
 is concerned. 'It is upon this principle that Jesus says, man can " kill 
 the body," but he u cannot kill the soui" or spirit. 
 
 In further proof that the spirit is a conscious intelligent entity in man, 
 I will call your attention to Ex. 35: 21, and Matt. 26: 41 : " And they 
 came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whose spirit 
 made him willing, and they brought the Lord's offering to the work of the 
 tabernacle." The other passage is the language of Jesus to his disciples: 
 <; The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." 
 
 The point in these two passages is, that the power of volition, or will- 
 ing, is attributed to the spirit. This of course could not be the case, if 
 the spirit is not a conscious intelligent entity. I would respectfully ask 
 my opponent, if he thinks an unconscious unintelligent thing or feeling 
 can will any thing. The will is said to be the man ; it is the very center 
 of our individuality, and the basis of our accountable actions. 
 
 Elder Grant, in his tract on the spirit, says: " In all the 400 passages 
 in the Old, and the 385 in the New Testament, where these words ( ren- 
 dered spirit ) occur, we do not find one which teaches, that when this spirit 
 is in man, it is the thinking accountable part ; or that it ever did or ever 
 will think." We have only to say that if the gentleman's theory has so 
 blinded his eyes that he cannot see such passages, we are sorry for him. 
 The passages just cited from Exodus 35: 21, and from Matt. 26: 41, prove 
 beyond all contradiction that will or volition, which is the very ground of 
 accountability, is attributed to the spirit of man; and 1 Cor. 2: 11, teach- 
 es that knowledge or intelligence is an attribute of the spirit. u What 
 man hioweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him? 
 Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God." 
 Can intelligence be predicated of influence — of breath — of a state of feel- 
 ing ? Impossible ! The spirit in this passage, which is said to be in man 
 and to know the things of man, cannot be anything less than a conscious 
 intelligent entity. 
 
 Again : It is the spirit of man that is the subject of regeneration. 
 il That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," says Jesus. — John 3 : 6. — 
 Nicodemus, wondering how the physical man could be the subject of such 
 a change, exclaims, " How can a man be born when he is old ? can he 
 enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born ?" Jesus ex- 
 plains to him : That which is born of the flesh is flesh — the outer man ; 
 but that which is born of the spirit is spirit — the inner man ; that is, it is 
 the spirit and not the body — the inner man, and not the outer man that is 
 the subject of regeneration or conversion. There are two changes or con- 
 versions — the one of the inner, the other of the outer man — the one to 
 the moral, the other to the physical likeness of Christ — the one in this 
 state, and the other in the resurrection of the dead. Hence says the 
 Apostle, " As we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear 
 the image of the heavenly." " Whom he did foreknow, them he did 
 predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he (the Son) 
 
8 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Blight be the first-born (from the dead) among many brethren." And 
 John Bays : " We know that when he appears, we shall be like him ; for 
 we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3 : 2. 
 
 Having now, as I think, sustained my first position, that the spirit in man 
 is a conscious intelligent entity, I will proceed to show, in the second 
 place, that there is a separation between the body and spirit at death. — 
 And the first passage that I will introduce in support of this point is 
 Eccl. 8 : 8. " There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain 
 the spirit, &o. This language clearly implies that the spirit takes its 
 departure from the body at death } and that man has not the power to re- 
 tain it. It is for this reason, that all the power there is in man belongs 
 to the spirit — is an atribute of spirit and not of matter ; and when the 
 spirit departs from the body it carries all the power with it, as it does the 
 life and the intelligence. What, in the last analysis, is power, if it is not 
 an atribute of spirit ? Experimental philosophy teaches us that there is 
 no power in matter, organized or unorganized ; that it is inert or power- 
 less ; and that this inertia is one of its essential properties, without which 
 it cannot exist. Consequently whatever power there is in man, manifest- 
 ed through the machinery of the material organism, is the power of the 
 spirit working in the harness of the flesh. Hence it may be said with 
 philosophical propriety, no man hath power over the spirit to retain the 
 spirit. When it takes its departure from the lody, it leaves it powerless, 
 lifeless, unconscious, unintelligent, dead. 
 
 My next proof text is Eccl. 12 : 7. " Then shall the dttst return to the 
 earth as it was, but the spirit shall return to God who gave it." This 
 passage teaches us not only that there is a separation between the body 
 and the spirit at death, but also that these two constituents of man have 
 separate destinies. The destiny of this perishable organism, which was 
 taken originally from the dust of the ground, is to return to the dust 
 again ; but the destiny of the imperishable incorruptible spirit which 
 came from God, is to return to God who gave it. Now, as I have already 
 said, going into the atmosphere is no more going to God than going into 
 the ground is going to God, unless my opponent can show that God is 
 more in the atmosphere than He is in the ground. 
 
 Again : Luke 23 : 46. " And when Jusus had cried with a loud voice, 
 he said, Father, into thy hand I commend my spirit ; and when he had said 
 this, he gave up the spirit." I presume that my opponent will try to 
 make out that this spirit of Jesus was only his breath which he breathed 
 out into the atmosphere. But such an idea is simply rediculous. What 
 is the last breath but a puff of carbonic acid gas ? and how rediculous 
 the idea that Jesus should solemnly commend that to the care of his 
 Father ! No reasonable and candid man, it seems to me, can believe it 
 for a moment. But let us now turn to Acts 7 : 59. " And they stoned 
 Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit." — 
 Where was Jesus at that moment ? " Looking up steadfastly into 
 Heaven, he said, Behold I see Heaven open, and the Son of man standing 
 on the right hand of God." He had been represented as sitting there 
 before ; but so intense was his interest in the death of his first martyr 
 that he had risen up from his seat. [Time expired.] 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 9 
 
 FIRST SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 As has been well remarked by my friend on the opposite side, the ques- 
 tion is one of importance. We are free to grant that, if he sustains his 
 position, he sustains an argument for hero worship, — for the practice 
 among the heathen of burning widows that their spirits may go and be 
 with the spirits of their husbands, — of putting hundreds of slaves to 
 death that their spirits may go up and wait upon their lords, deceased : — 
 It also sustains the doctrine of purgatory, Spiritualism, Swedenborgian- 
 ism, eternal misery, etc., etc. 
 
 I will grant, Mr. Chairman, that if my opponent's position is sustained, 
 that an argument for these is sustained. We make this remark that you 
 may see how we look at the subject and the importance we attach to the 
 position we may take this evening. 
 
 My opponent has the long arm of the lever, or the long end of the 
 yoke, from this fact ; he has all our tracts that we have published on this 
 subject, and has been pleased to review arguments which have not been 
 brought forward yet. But we grant him all that advantage, for if we 
 have the truth, we are willing to take the short end of the yoke ; and if 
 we have not the truth., the sooner we know it the better. What we ad- 
 vocate, we believe just as strongly as our brother on the opposite side, be- 
 cause we think the Bible teaches it. [Applause.] As we differ — one, or 
 both of us, must be wrong; both cannot be right; and we hope that, du- 
 ring our discussion, we shall proceed calmly, without excitement ; and be 
 assured that God will take care of his own truth. 
 
 We may not get time to notice all the points our brother has been over. 
 He remarks first, that man is a compound being ; that the spirit is the in- 
 Ulligent part, and the body is the house for the spirit to occupy. This 
 spirit, he says, is in the form of the physical organism ; and when a 
 man's physical arm is cut off, that spiritual organization remains. He 
 quotes Dr. Liteh as authority. We wish for better. It is a fact that 
 after a while that sensation is all gone. How is this ? Has the man 
 worn out his spirit arm ? We have this testimony from those who have 
 had experience. It is true, for a while, he feels a kind of sensation, and 
 we are told by our opponent, that this physical organization may be all 
 cut up and hacked to pieces, yet we cannot hurt the spirit. That is a 
 bold assertion and we challenge the proof. The idea is that after my arm 
 is cut off, I have a spirit arm, so that I can run it into the fire and feel no 
 sensation ; yet we arc told that the spirit is the thinking part. Where is 
 the proof that the fire cannot hurt it ? Mr. Lee says that the frost can- 
 not affect this spirit. He says that it cannot be cut with saws and knives, 
 and yet this is called the " real man.*' 1 This spirit is said to be the intel- 
 ligent entity in man. Our resolution reads, — '' When man dies his spirit 
 remains in a conscious state, separate from the body until the resurrec- 
 tion." Is that spirit the man, sir ? 
 
 When man dies where is he then ? Is the spirit the man ? Why say 
 u when man dies ?" The Bible says, " man dies," and does not intimate 
 
10 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 that the man is alive when he is dead, or that any part of him thinks or 
 knows anything when he is dead. This spirit he says, is the intelligent 
 entity, and remarks that our tract shows " all sorts of twisting and turning 
 done here." 
 
 We were then referred to Job, 32 : 8, as the first Scripture proof. — 
 " But there is a spirit in man and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth 
 them understanding.-' Is that spirit, man ? " The Lord God formed 
 man of the dust of the ground." The Bible declares he breathed into his 
 nostrils" — the spirit man ? no, sir ! " The breath of life, and man be- 
 came" — an immortal soul ? no ! "a living soul." That is the account of 
 the creation. 
 
 " There is a spirit in man." We are ready to grant that there is an 
 intelligence in man. But we are told that our tract says, that this word 
 ruach does not represent the intelligent part in man. Let me read. — 
 " From a careful examination of the word ruach in the Old Testament, 
 and pneuma in the New, we are fully satisfied that these words are never 
 used in the Bible, to represent conscious entity, or being, that leaves man 
 at death to enter heaven, hell, or the spheres." That is what our tract 
 says. The idea was carried that we said that man had not an intelligent 
 spirit in him." Our tract says, the spirit is not a " conscious entity, or 
 being, that leaves man at death to enter Heaven, hell, or the spheres." — ■ 
 We repeat it again. 
 
 " There is a spirit in man and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth 
 them understanding." We do not see that this passage proves that his 
 conscious spirit goes off when he is dead. We do not see that it bears 
 at all on the resurrection. My opponent thinks it does, and we will meet 
 it more fully. Job says, in chap. 27 : 3, " all the while my breath is in 
 me and the spirit of God is in my nostrils." Was the intelligent part of 
 Job in his nostrils? yet he declares this fact, — " The spirit of God is in 
 my nostrils." The word in these passages rendered spirit is the same as 
 used by David when he says, " Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled, 
 thou takest away their breath — they die and return to their dust." 
 Psalms 104 : 29. 
 
 We are next referred to Eecl. 12 : 7. " Then shall the dust return to 
 the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." 
 We are told very positively that this spirit is a being that cannot be 
 cut with saws or knives, or injured in any way. Hack or chop a man all 
 up, and you have not affected the spirit in him. Let us go back to the 
 account of the creation. " The Lord God formed man of the dust of the 
 ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became 
 a living soul." — Gen. 2:7. " Thou hidest thy face they are troubled, 
 thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust." This 
 last is an account of man's death — the opposite of creation. What was the 
 dust ? That is man according to the Bible record ; for I read in Gen. 
 3 : 19, " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return 
 unto the ground ; for out of it wast thou taken ; for dust thou art and 
 unto dust shalt thou return." 
 
 Now sir, if the spirit cannot be affected by any material agency, and is 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 11 
 
 the thinking part, that is the part God addresses when he says, " In the 
 sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground. 1 ' 
 3Ir. Chairman, we never talk to the house. We are told that the body is 
 only the house for the spirit to live in. Then God is talking to this 
 spirit when he says, " Unto dust shalt thou return." In harmony with 
 this is Eccl. 12]: 7. i; Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, 
 and the spirit shall return to God who gave it." What is that spirit 
 which returns from man ? We make the assertion and intend to sustain 
 it, that nothing hut li the breath of life" leaves man when he dies. We re- 
 peat it, and make the remark on the authority of the Bible, sound philos- 
 ophy, common sense, and all facts, that nothing but " the breath of life," 
 breathed into man's nostrils, leaves him when he dies. We challenge tla 
 proof to tlie contrary. 
 
 The word rendered spirit in Eccl. 12 : 7, occurs four hundred times in 
 the Old Testament, and three hundred and eighty-rive in the New, and 
 yet in all these seven hundred and eighty-five times, this word is not ren- 
 dered soul once : but my opponent has endeavored to confound the two. 
 The words are not used interchangeably in a single case, either in the 
 Old or the New Testament. 
 
 This word rendered spirit, in Eccl. 12 : 7, is rendered wind ninety-five 
 times. It is also rendered air, tempest and whirl-wind. Job says, in 
 speaking of the Leviathan, that "his scales are so near to one anoth- 
 er, that no air can come between them." — Job 41 : 16. 
 
 We are referred to Zech. 12: 1. "The burden of the word of the 
 Lord for Israel, saith the Lord which stretcheth forth the heavens, and 
 layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within 
 him." Suppose we admit what my friend claims, that the spirit is formed 
 within him, does that prove it is an intelligent being ? Does it prove 
 that it goes away an intelligent man when the man is dead ? — " He form- 
 eth the spirit of man within him." In these words, the Lord makes him- 
 self known as the Creator of " the breath of life," to sustain man's exist- 
 ence. In Amos -4: 13 we have a corresponding passage, where the same 
 word is rendered wind. " For, lo, he formeth the mountains, and creat- 
 cth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thoughts, that maketh 
 the morning darkness and treadeth upon the high places of the earth, 
 the Lord, the God of Hosts, is his name." We hold it is not essential to 
 take the position that the spirit is first formed in man. Zechariah when 
 speaking of the act of creation, says : he *' layeth the foundation of the 
 earth, aud formeth the spirit." or the breath, or the air that is "within 
 
 him." " For, lo, he that formeth the mountains and createth the wind 
 
 the Lord is his name." 
 
 My brother says that spirits have forms and that some of the Jews did 
 not believe in angels or spirits. The Pharisees believed in both. We 
 find that angels are called spirits, and we read of " the father of spirits." 
 These angels, when they have appeared on the earth, have had forms. — 
 They stayed all night with Lot, ate with him. and were also entertained by 
 Abraham. An angel came to the sepulchre of Christ, and rolled away 
 the stone and sat upon it ; and they saw him sitting there and were afraid. 
 
12 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 We are also exhorted to entertain strangers, for by so doing we may en- 
 tertain li angels unawares," but not disembodied spirits ! 
 
 Mark 6 : 49 was refered to by our opponent — li But when they saw 
 him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried 
 out." The word here rendered spirit, is phantasma — a phantom. This 
 word occurs in only one other passage — Matt. 14 : 26. A phantom is 
 not a reality. We have read of the " Phantom Ship," and other phantom 
 appearances. A ship was seen coming into port. The people thought 
 they knew the ship, as one which had sailed from their harbor a while be- 
 fore ; when all at once, it vanished from their sight and was heard of no 
 more We will illustrate our idea of phantoms. Very often when we are 
 travelling in the cars at night, we look out through the window, and see 
 the opposite side of the car very distinctly. That is a phantom. When 
 we look more carefully, we can see the stars and the trees through it. 
 
 We are next referred to where Christ appeared to his disciples and said 
 " a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." Angels are spirits; 
 but they have not " flesh and bones" they have tangible organisms; with- 
 out them it is impossible for a being to exist. The angels, or spirits, are 
 not made of dust as we are. 
 
 We were referred to Mark 14 : 38. " The spirit truly is ready, but the 
 flesh is weak." 
 
 Does that prove that it exists out of the organism ? This refers to a 
 man's feelings. Our feelings are often willing to perform an act, but the 
 flesh is weak. We do not see how this proves the position that the spirit 
 exists in a conscious state out of the body. 
 
 We are next referred to 1 Cor. 2 : 11. For what man knoweth the 
 things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him V Even so the 
 things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God." We read about 
 a " spirit of error," a " spirit of bondage," a " spirit of Anti-Christ," 
 and of some twenty more different kinds of spirits. Are we to under- 
 stand, sir, that each of these will live as conscious beings when the man 
 is dead ? How do we get a knowledge of our sins forgiven ? By our 
 feelings. We got it in that way and so does every man ; i. c, the Spirit 
 of God operates upon the nervous system. Bat we fail to see that this 
 proves that a man lives on, when all his organization is in ruins. 
 
 My brother claims that it is the spirit of mai which is the subject of 
 regeneration. We read, " If the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from 
 the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also 
 quicken your mortal bodies, by his spirit that dwelleth in you." Rom. 
 8 : 11. Christ was the first born from the dead, and if the spirit which 
 was in him dwell in us, it shall quicken these " mortal bodies." We be- 
 lieve in regeneration ; we believe in conversion ; but we do not believe 
 -this passage proves the assertion, that the spirit of man is that which we 
 cannot cut, saw, chop or burn. 
 
 We are referred to Eccl. 8:8. " There is no man that hath power 
 over the spirit to retain the spirit ; neither hath he power in the day of 
 death ; and there is no discharge in that war ; neither shall wickedrcess 
 deliver those who are eiven to it." 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 
 
 13 
 
 The spirit in this passage evidently refers to the breath which God 
 takes away. No man can retain it against his will. 
 
 My friend remarks, that the spirit carries its powers with it, and refers 
 | to Stephen in Acts 7 : 59, and to Christ. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the latter is out of order ; we are discussing the nature 
 ! of mm, not of the Son of God. 
 
 Stephen said, — 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit And when he had 
 
 l said this, he fell asleep.' 1 '' u And devout men carried Stephen to his 
 
 j burial." He felt like Job, when he said, " ! that thou wouldest hide 
 
 me in the grace." The word here rendered spirit, is the same that is ren- 
 
 dered breath. St3phen wished that his breath might be taken away, so 
 
 that he could fall asleep in death. [Time expired.'] 
 
 SECOND SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON. 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 I was sorry that my opponent in his last speech endeavored to throw 
 discredit upon the doctrine which I advocate by making it responsible for 
 all the absurdities of hero worship, witchcraft, spirit manifestations, <fcc. 
 &e. It reminded me of the old infidel objection to the Bible, founded 
 on the abuses of Christianity. I suppose that the gentleman is aware of 
 the fact that infidels have sought to make Christianity responsible for all 
 the gross absurdities and abuses which have been believed in and prac- 
 ticed by its professors. But that does not invalidate the truth of Chris- 
 tianity. I am not here to-night, Mr. President, to affirm that a good 
 thing cannot be abused. And if I should succeed in showing that the 
 doctrine of the conscious existance of the human spirit is true, and some 
 should jump to the conclusion of modern spirit manifestations, the doc- 
 trine which I advocate cannot be held responsible for it. 
 
 The gentleman called in question the accuracy of my quotation from 
 his tract entitled, " The Spirit in Man." He said he never stated in this 
 tract " that he found no passage in the Bible going to prove that the 
 spirit while in man is the intelligent accountable part ; but he found no 
 passage proving that the spirit flies away at death." He then read from 
 his tiact a different passage from the one that I referred to. I will now 
 turn to the passage and read it, that you may see exactly how the matter 
 stands. It commences on page 31, and reads as follows : " In all the 400 
 passages in the Old, and the 385 in the New Testament, where these words 
 [rendered spirit] occur, we do not find one which teaches that when this 
 spirit is in man, it is the thinking accountable part ; or that ever did or 
 ever will think." Now then, my friends, I will just refer to my notes, where 
 the passage is written out in full, to show you that I quoted it correctly. 
 Here it is : " In all the 400 passages in the Old, and the 385 in the New 
 Testament, where the words rendered spirit occur, we do not find one that 
 teaches that when this spirit is in man, it is the thinking accountable 
 part ; or that it ever did or ever will think." Am I not correct, Mr. 
 President ? and is not the gentleman wrong ? 
 
14 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Mr. Grant. — My Opponent left out the words '■ or breath" every time 
 he quoted the passage. 
 
 Mr. Clayton. — True, the word " breath" is inserted as a definition of 
 spirit, but I am not so fond of that definition as my friend M r. Grant. 
 
 (Applause — during which the President called the meeting to order.) 
 
 Mr. Clayton then proceeded : My friend, Mr. Grant, seems rather to 
 ridicule the idea advanced by me that the body is a house or tabernacle. 
 Well, he is only ridiculing the bible, not me. Let me read you a little on 
 this subject from Paul and Peter. 2 Cor. 5 : 1-9. " For we know that 
 if this earthly house of our tabernacle were disolved, we have a building 
 of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in 
 this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which 
 is from heaven ; if so be that being clothed, we shall not be found naked. 
 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened ; not that we 
 would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed 
 up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the self-same thing is God, 
 who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are 
 always confident, knowing that whilst we are at home in the body, we are 
 absent from the Lord : ( for we walk by faith, not by sight ) we are con- 
 fident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be 
 present with the Lord. Wherefore we labor that whether present or ab- 
 sent, we may be accepted of him." Now let it be distinctly observed that 
 what the Apostle calls the house or tabernacle in the commencement of 
 this chapter, he calls the body as he proceeds. And who are the " we" 
 that are in the body and out of the body, unclothed and clothed upon, 
 absent from the body, and present with the Lord, and at home in the 
 body, and absent from the Lord? It will puzzle the gentleman, with his 
 philosophy of man, to give a satisfactory answer to this question. But 
 this is not all. — 2 Pet. 1 : 13-14 : " Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am 
 in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance ; for I 
 must shortly put off this tabernacle, as the Lord Jesus Christ hath show- 
 ed me." That he speaks of his death here is evident from what follows. 
 '- Moreover, I will endeavor that ye may be able, after my decease to have 
 these things alwa}<s in remembrance. PI ere we have the fact that Peter 
 regarded his body as a tabernacle or house, and that he contemplated 
 death as a putting off of that tabernacle." " I must shortly put off this 
 tabernacle, as the Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me." According to 
 Mr. Grant's definition of man, this tabernacle, or dust organism, is the 
 man proper, but according to Paul and Peter, it is the mere outward 
 form of the man — the tabernacle or house which the real identity, the 
 " I" occupies, and which it puts off at death. The gentleman has quoted 
 Gen. 2:7, " And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the 
 ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became 
 a living soul" — to prove that there is nothing in him but his breath; but 
 I have proved from Job 32 : 8, and from Zach. 12 : 1, that there is a 
 spirit in man, and that that spirit has a form ; that it was given him by 
 the inbreathing of the Almighty ; and that volition and understanding are 
 predicated of it. It is this intelligent spirit which the Apostles, Paul 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 15 
 
 and Peter, call the " I'' and the " we" in the tabernacle. There is, there- 
 fore, something more than the breath that leaves the body at death. 
 
 The gentleman, in replying to this argument, asks, " Do these scriptures 
 prove that the spirit is conscious after death V" I answer, no — I did not 
 introduce them to prove that point ; but to show that there is a conscious 
 intelligent spirit in man. I stated in my opening remarks that my order 
 would be this : first, to prove that there is an intelligent spirit in man ; 
 second, that this spirit is separated from the body at death ; and, third, that 
 it remains in a conscious state till the resurrection. I had proved the 
 first point, and was proceeding with the second when my time expired. 
 
 Having already noticed Eccl. 8 : 8 — " No man hath power over the 
 spirit to retain the spirit;" Eccl. 12 : 7 — " Then shall the dust return to 
 the earth as it was, but the spirit shall return to God who gave it;" Luke 
 23: 46. — Ck Father into thy hands I commend my spirit;" and Acts 7: 55. — 
 ' k They stoned Stephen calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus receive 
 my spirit;" I will now introduce James 2 : 26 — " For as the body with- 
 out the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." This passage 
 not only teaches a separation between the body and the spirit at death, 
 but also that the body is the part of man which dies. It is dead without 
 the spirit — that is, in the absence of the spirit. The spirit departs from 
 it, taking the life with, it and leaving it dead. Hence, in strict propriety, 
 death is a negative state — the absence of life, as darkness is the absence 
 of light. When the " spirit of life" departs from the body it leaves it 
 lifeless, inanimate, dead. This. I apprehend, is the true philosophy of 
 death. 
 
 I will now pass to the third point, and endeavor to prove that the 
 spirit of man is conscious between death and the resurrection. 
 
 My first proof of this fact is the Savior's promise to the penitent thief, 
 Luke 23: 43 — " And Jesus said unto him. Verily I say unto thee, to-day 
 shalt thou be with me in paradise." In order to understand the nature 
 of the thief's request, and the import of the Savior's promise to him, it 
 will be necessary for us to enquire, what opinion did the Jews entertain 
 respecting the death of Messiah. That he was to die in any maimer, much 
 less b}^ their own hands, as a guilty malefactor upon the cross, was an idea 
 that never had entered their minds. It was contrary, indeed, to all their 
 preconceived opinions respecting him. They conceived of him as a splen- 
 did earthly potentate, who should reign without a rival on the throne of 
 David forever. And hence, when he .spoke to them of his death under 
 the figure of being ' ; lifted up," they answer, w We have heard out of 
 the law, that Christ ahideth forever ; how sayest thou, then, the son of 
 man must be " lifted up ?" Who is this son of man ? That the disciples 
 also entertained this same view down to the time of the apprehension of 
 their Master, is evident from the whole tenor of the evangelical narrative. 
 When they first confessed their faith in him as the Messiah, at CaDsarea 
 Philipui, as recorded in Matt. 16 : 17, wo are informed that, ;; From that 
 time forward began Jesus to show unto his disciples that he must go to 
 Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and 
 scribes, and be killed, and be raised again on the third day. Then Peter 
 
16 DISCUSSION ox 
 
 took him and began to rebuke hiin, saying, " Be it far from thee, O Lord ; 
 this shall never be unto thee." Although Jesus taught them this lesson 
 repeatedly both in plain and in figurative language — while they abode in 
 Galilee, when on their way to Jerusalem, for the last time — and even 
 embodied it in the symbols of the loaf and the cup, they seemed not to 
 come to any realization that the event would ever take place. The vis- 
 ions of an undying Messiah and of a literal kingdom on the throne of 
 David in Jerusalem, had so eclipsed their spiritual vision that they could 
 not perceive the true import of their Master's teaching on this subject, or 
 realize that he was to die as he had declared. And even at the moment 
 of his apprehension, Peter, who was the first to oppose it, is ready to fight 
 against it with the sword. The Jews and the disciples alike entertained 
 no other idea than that the Messiah was not to die ; but that he was to 
 reign in Jerusalem on the throne of David forever. And hence they sup- 
 posed that if Jesus of Nazareth was the trite Messiah, they could not put 
 him to death. Their ability to succeed in killing him was to be regarded 
 as a triumphant refutation of his claims ; and hence, when they had pro- 
 ceeded so far with his execution as to nail him to the cross, " they passed 
 hj wagging their heads, and saying, If thou be the Messiah save thyself 
 and come down from the cross — let him come down from the cross, and 
 we will believe him." It is evident that those who did believe him to be 
 the true Messiah, did expect that he would save himself and come down 
 from the cross ; and among these we may rank the penitent thief, who 
 prayed, " Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom" — that 
 is, when thou comest down from the cross, and establishest thy kingdom, do 
 not forget to take me down also. 
 
 That such was really the idea of the thief, is evident from what must 
 have been his views of the kingdom. That he had any idea of a king- 
 dom in the heavenly world, into which Jesus would enter in his disembod- 
 ied state ; or of a kingdom to be established fifty days after, on the day 
 of Penticost; or of a kingdom in the new Eeath, after the resurrection 
 of the dead ; according to the view of my opponent, we have not the 
 slightest ground to infer. For none of these views was then understood 
 by any body — not even by the most intelligent of the disciples themselves. 
 The only idea which they had of the kingdom, down to the time when 
 Jesus ascended to Heaven, was, that it should be a literal monarchy in 
 the city of Jerusalem — a restoration of the ancient kingdom of Israel ; 
 for the last words they said to Jesus before he took his departure to 
 Heaven, was : " Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to 
 Israel ?" The thief, therefore, could have had no other idea of the king- 
 dom than the prevailing idea of the times, which was entertained alike by 
 the Jews and the disciples — that it was to be a literal kingdom on the 
 throne of David in Jerusalem. It sometimes happens that men of great 
 minds and extensive research, do come in possession of ideas far in ad- 
 vance of their own times. Such, indeed, has been the case with all the 
 world's great teachers in science and philosophy, and such has been the 
 case with many eminent expounders of Holy Scripture. But that this 
 unfortunate criminal, cut off, as he had been, from all the sources of infor- 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 17 
 
 ination on the subject, should have had an idea of the kingdom, far in ad- 
 vance of the age in which he lived, and of the most intelligent of the 
 disciples of Christ, is too absurd to be supposed for a moment. It fol- 
 lows, therefore, that the only idea which he could have had respecting 
 the kingdom, was the prevailing idea of the times. Believing, as he did, 
 that Jesus was the true Messiah, and that his enemies could not possibly 
 put him to death, he supposed that he would manifest his power in a man- 
 ner more extraordinary than he ever yet had done, in coming down from 
 the cross, and establishing his kingdom in spite of the opposition of his 
 enemies. It was with this idea in his mind that he prayed, " Lord re- 
 member me when thou comest into thy kingdom" — that is, when thou 
 comest down from the cross, and establishest thy kingdom, remember to 
 take me down also. 
 
 The Savior's reply to him, gave him to understand that his request 
 could not be granted ; that instead of living, they should die, instead of 
 being together in his kingdom on earth, they should be together in the 
 invisible world — in paradise. " Yerily I say unto you, to-day shalt thou 
 be with me in paradise." I affirm that with the Jewish idea of paradise, 
 with which the criminal must have been conversant, the import of the 
 Savior's language was plain to him, that instead of living, they must die, 
 and be together in the invisible world — in hades. Before offering the 
 proof of this, however, I must notice the gentleman's criticism on the 
 word to-day , as found in his tract on this subject, and the " Rich man and 
 Lazarus." 
 
 In order to make out that Jesus promised the penitent thief an abode 
 in paradise after the resurrection, and to harmonize this passage with his 
 view of the unconsciousness of the dead, he has to change the punctuation, 
 making it read like this, " Verily I say unto you to-day, thou shalt be 
 with me in paradise." That is, I say to you to-day, you shall be with me 
 in paradise by-and-by, after the resurrection. In this way he has to 
 tinker the passage to make it harmonize with his peculiar theory. He 
 then goes to the book of Deuteronomy, and to Webster and Choate's 
 orations to find something to justify him in changing the punctuation of 
 the passage. But the passages cited are not paralell. Every Bible 
 scholar knows, or ought to know, that the law given in Deuteronomy is a 
 rehearsal to the children of what had been commanded at Sinai to the 
 fathers ; and the expressions to-day and this day qualifying I command, and 
 denounce, are used in contrast with past time, and are therefore differently 
 employed from the adverb to-day in this promise to the thief. " Yerily I 
 say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." {Time expired.] 
 
18 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 SECOND SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 I love the Bible too well to ridicule it, or I would not be here as I am to- 
 night. We shall proceed to the objections. — 2 Cor. 5: 1. "For we know, 
 that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a build- 
 ing of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." This 
 is thought to prove the spirit is conscious, after it has left the body. There 
 is not one word about the spirit in this passage. Let us look at it. " If 
 our earthly house," not houses, " of this tabernacle," not tabernacles, were 
 dissolved, we have a building of God," not buildings, " an house," not houses, 
 " not made with hands," where is it ? " eternal in the heavens." Does 
 he mean to teach that when we die, the spirit has a body in the aeavens, 
 to move itself into ? If so, what is to be done with this body ? When I 
 read that this " vile body" shall "be fashioned" like the Savior's "glorious 
 body," which body will the spirit take if it has two ? Says our Savior, in 
 John 14: 2-3, "In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not 
 so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you ; and if I go and 
 prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, 
 that where I am, there ye may be also." Does he mean many bodies for 
 spirits to go into ? John says, in Revelations 21 : 2, " and I John saw the 
 Holy City, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of Heaven, pre- 
 pared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out 
 of Heaven, saying, behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will 
 dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be 
 with them and be their God." " Come my people," says the prophet, 
 "enter thou into thy chambers until the indignation be overpast." 
 
 We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, 
 <fce. Peter says: — "The elements shall melt w T ith fervent heat;" — "never- 
 theless," said he, " we look for new heavens and a new earth." The 
 
 same as John saw. And then he saw the " new Jerusalem coming down 
 from God out of Heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. — 
 And I heard a great voice out of Heaven saying, behold, the tabernacle of 
 God is with men." Wakefield renders this passage, " for we know that if 
 this tent, wherein we dwell, which is fixed on the ground, be taken to pie- 
 ces, we have a divine building, a house not made with hands, eternal in the 
 heavens. For indeed, in this tent we sigh with an earnest desire of cloth- 
 ing ourselves with that heavenly habitation," in w r hich David says he shall 
 dwell. 
 
 We are referred to Paul's willingness to be "absent from the body" 
 and be " present with the Lord." Paul speaks of being " clothed" and 
 "unclothed." He is using figures. He does not mean, put on and take 
 off garments. He says in Rom. 12: 5, " So we, being many, are one body 
 in Christ, and every one members one of another." Also 1 Cor. 12: 27, 
 " Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular." He " hath 
 put all things under his feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things 
 to the Church, which is his body. — Eph. 1 : 22-23. Paul declares, while 
 we are here, we are absent from the Lord ; but not a word about his spirit 
 going to the Lord. 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 10 
 
 In another place, he says he has **a desire to depart and to be with 
 Christ." Let this lamp (taking one from the desk) represent Paul's body, 
 if you please ; and the light his spirit. When we blow ont the light, 1ft 
 the lamp gone? He says not a word of leaving his body behind; but 
 would like to be translated like Enoch. 
 
 We are then referred to 2 Peter 1 : 13-14. " Yea I think it meet, as 
 long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remem- 
 brance ; knowing that shortly I must put oft" this my tabernacle, even as 
 our Lord Jesus Christ hath*showed me. Moreover, I will endeavor that ye 
 may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.*' 
 " I think it meet as "long as / am in this tabernacle/' Now if my oppo- 
 nents argument is sound, *!" represents the spirit; "my tabernacle," the 
 body. M Morover I will endeavor that ye may bo able after my decease." 
 W T hat does this my mean ? Who is the I'l We answer, Frier — the whole 
 of him — the organized being, made of the dust of the ground. This, then, 
 proves also the death of the spirit. My brother says Peter calls this, " my 
 tabernacle." I call this physical organism myself, because God calls it. thus. 
 And we invite our opponent to bring the first proof from the Bible in 
 which God calls the spirit, man. Job says, "If a man die, shall he live 
 
 again <" Says Paul, "If Christ be not risen then they also which are 
 
 fallen asleep in Christ are perished." And the Bible declares positively, 
 that there is no reward or punishment until the coming of the Lord. 
 
 The andsr standing is predicated on the spirit of man. u But there is a 
 spirit in man ; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understand- 
 ing." Job 32 : 8. This has been named repeatedly by my opponent. Now we 
 hold that when the spirit leaves man, he is dead, and the spirit which leaves 
 him is M the breath of life.' The Lord God formed man, and called him 
 man before he breathed into his nostrils tt the breath of life," and made 
 him a thinking being. When he dies, he ceases to think. We admit, sir, 
 that the intelligence of man depends on his having u the breath of life*' 
 in him. The Bible declares it, and this is the reason why we believe it. 
 
 James 2: 26 is named by our opponent. This reads, "For as the body 
 without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." The word 
 rendered spirit is the same which is rendered breath, air and wind in many oth- 
 er parts of the Bible. Griesbach, one of the best translators Readers it Ireaih. 
 The old translation of Wicliffe reads breath. This passage doe 1 - ret 
 say that the spirit is the man. It simply declares that man is dead with- 
 out breath ; as David says. " Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled, then 
 takest away their breath, they die." 
 
 We now come to the Thief on the cross. It is very fortunate that our 
 opponent has our tracts to read. It gives him this advantage ; he knews 
 our arguments before we advance them. We hope that he will make the 
 best use of them he can, but not ridicule what he cannot meet. He has 
 made some strange statements in relation to this Thief. There is not one 
 word about spirit in this account, not a word. We do not see that this 
 Scripture has any bearing on the question. It is asked, " What idea had 
 the disciples of the death of Christ ?" " Did they suppose that he was 
 going to be slain ?" gays Paul, " We believe that Jesus died and ro*e 
 
20 DISCUSSION ON r 
 
 again." We must believe then that He did actually die. Our opponent 
 argues that the Thief did not understand that the Lord was to die ; but 
 that he supposed that Christ was about to descend from the cross and set 
 lip his Kingdom in Jerusalem. I would like the proof. This is another 
 assertion, and we hope the audience will distinguish between assertions and 
 proof. Let us see if we can reconcile this conclusion with facts. The 
 passage does not say, " When Thou comest down from the cross, remem- 
 ber me," but " when thou comest into Thy Kingdom." If the disciples 
 thought Christ was to set up his kingdom during his first advent ; the 
 Savior corrected them before his crucifixion, in the following parable, 
 and many other places. " A certain nobleman went into a far country, 
 to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return." The Savior spoke this 
 parable to show that he was to be gone a long time, and then return and 
 set up his kingdom. We are told in Luke 21 : 31. " When ye see these 
 things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of G-od is nigh at hand." 
 We claim, sir, he taught the Apostles distinctly that his kingdom was in 
 the distant future ; and that, " when the Son of man shall come in his 
 glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne 
 of his glory : and before him shall be gathered all nations ; and he shall 
 separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the 
 goats ; and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the 
 left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye 
 blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
 foundation of the world." This is in harmony with all the teachings of 
 our Savior, and we challenge the first passage of Scripture to show the 
 contrary. 
 
 We will now examine the passage — J Remember me when thou comest 
 into thy kingdom." Christ says ; " Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt 
 thou be with me in paradise." The question is asked, f Where is 
 paradise ?" The answer was given " the invisible world," " hades" " the 
 place of departed spirits." The word hades in the New Testament cor- 
 responds with the word sheol in the Old Testament. Let the Bible de- 
 scribe hades ; not Josephus, nor the heathen philosophers. We profess to 
 be Bible men. In Eccl. 9 : 10, we read, " Whatsoever thy hand findeth 
 to do, do it with thy might ; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowl- 
 edge, nor wisdom in (sheol) the grave, whither thou goest." If the Thief 
 went to a paradise in hades, he went where there is no knowledge, nor 
 wisdom, nor device ; and though my opponent should bring a thousand 
 heathen philosophers to the contrary, we shall stand by the Bible defini- 
 tion. We know the heathen taught the idea, that there was an infernal re- 
 gion, and that Pluto was the G-od of it. But where is paradise ? Let the 
 Bible answer. We know the old paradise was where Adam lived ; where 
 the tree of life grew, and he was driven from that paradise, lest he should 
 eat of the fruit " and live for ever." Turn to Revelations 2 : 7. Says 
 the Savior, " to him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the tree of life 
 which is in the midst of the paradise of Grod." Is the tree of life down 
 in Hades ? — where " there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor 
 wisdom !" In Adam's days it was upon the earth ; but we are told that 
 
THE STATE OP THE DEAD. 21 
 
 hades is a subteranean pla,ce, in the interior of the earth. We 
 have now found the tree of life is in paradise. Where is that ? We 
 turn to Rev. 21st and 22nd Chap., and we find the new earth or the 
 kingdom described. Says the Savior, * blessed are the meek, for they 
 shall inherit the earth."' Did the Savior or the Thief go there when they 
 died ? My friend, Mr. Clayton, does not contend that they went to 
 Heaven, but others do. The Savior says to Mary after His resurrection, 
 " Touch me not, for I am not ascended to my Father." He was on earth 
 forty days after that; so that if the Thief went to Heaven that day, he 
 did not find the Savior there. He did no go till forty-three days after 
 the crucifixion. 
 
 We are told that we tinker the Bible. That we punctuate it wrong. 
 How is this? Others have tinkere ■' it before us, for the Bible as originally 
 written, is entirely without punctuation, The comma was not introduced 
 till the 16th century. Griesbach, on*> of the best translators, says, ''the 
 comma in this passage is placed by some, on one side of ' to-day,' by 
 others on the other." Taking this passage by itself, without endeavoring 
 to harmonize it with the rest of the Bible, and it seems to prove that they 
 went to paradise that day. But we have found that paradise is to be in 
 the new earth. If we put the comma on the other side of " to-day," it 
 will harmonize with the whole Bible. Let us show the importance of a 
 comma by citing other passages. See Heb. 10 : 12. " But this man, 
 after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand 
 of God." Other Bibles punctuate this as follows: tC But this man after 
 he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of 
 God." This would prove he could never come back again. Take another 
 example. Matt. 19 : 28. " And Jesus said unto them, verily I say 
 unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the 
 Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon 
 twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." If we put the com- 
 ma after regeneration, instead of me, as we find it in many Bible, the pas- 
 sage then teaches that Christ was regenerated or converted, which is a 
 monstrous idea, We see all do not tinker alike on punctuation. I do not 
 like t^at word tinker, it is rather slurring. We have not come here to use 
 sarcasm. 
 
 '■ We come back to the Thief. The argument turns upon the doubtful pos- 
 ition of the comma. If we put it on one side of to-day, it contradicts the 
 Bible ; if on the other, it harmonizes with it perfectly. We find in many 
 examples in the Bible where to-day is used in the same sense that it would 
 be in the ease of the Thief, if the comma be placed after to-day. Let us 
 look at a few. Deut. 30 : 16. In that I command thee this-day to love 
 the Lord thy God." Deut, 80 : 18-19. I denounce unto you this day, 
 that ye shall surely perish." lk I call Heaven and earth to record this day 
 against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curs- 
 ing." Deut. 8 : 19. " And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the Lord 
 thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I 
 testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish." The phrase 
 " this day," is as superfluous in these examples as in the passage under 
 
2- DISCUSSION ON 
 
 examination. Says Mr. Webster, " I speak to day for the preservation of 
 the Union.'' Every body knew it was to-day, but it is a common way of 
 speaking. Mr. Choate said on another occasion, " to-day, fellow citizens, 
 we also speak for the Union." When we were at Sandy Hill a few days 
 since, a minister rose and said, " I expect to-night, to get into the king- 
 dom." Put the comma after " expect," and it means he is going to the 
 kingdom before morning. 
 
 The President notified Mr. Grant that the half-hour had expired, and 
 declared the meeting adjourned. 
 
 TUESDAY EVENING. 
 
 Proposition. — '■'■ When man dies, his spirit remains in a conscious stat«, sepa- 
 rate from the body, until the resurrection." 
 
 Elder Clayton affirms — Elder Grant denies. 
 
 FIRST SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON. 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 When my time expired last evening, I was making an argument in 
 favor of the conscious state of the dead, on the Savior's promise to the 
 penitent thief; and I had proceeded so far as to show that the thief could 
 have entertained no other idea than that Jesus would come down from 
 the cross, and establish his kingdom in spite of the opposition of his ene- 
 mies. It was with this idea in his mind that he prayed, " Lord remem- 
 ber me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Jesus replied, " Verily I 
 say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." I affirm that 
 the adverb to-day in this passage, is used to modify the verb slialt be, and 
 not the verb say, as my opponent has endeavored to make out. To make 
 it read to suit him, he has to change the punctuation, or, as I said last 
 night, to tinker the passage. But I am satisfied with it just as it is ; it 
 sustains my position without any tinkering. 
 
 My opponent quotes from Webster and Choate to show that these dis- 
 tinguished orators have used the adverb to-day in the same sense in which 
 this would be employed by changing the punctuation. But I deny that 
 they do so use it. Here are the passages cited ; " I speak to-day for the 
 preservation of the Union." — Webster. "I speak this day for the Un- 
 ion/' — -Choate. It is true that in these passages the abverbs " to-day' 1 
 and " this day" are used to modify the verb " speak" ; but the passages 
 are by no means parallel with the Savior's promise to the penitent thief. 
 In announcing the subject or object of a discourse, as Webster and Choate 
 evidently do in the passages cited, the adverb is used in a legitimate 
 sense ; just as if I should say, I speak to-day for the cause of temperance. 
 I speak to-day in behalf of Missions — that is the object of my discourse. 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. Z6 
 
 But Jesus was not announcing the object of his discourse to the penitent 
 thief; for he made no discourse; he uttered but one sentence; and the 
 thief knew full well when it was that Jesus uttered it, and hence there 
 could have been no question in his mind as to the time when Jesus said 
 the sentence ; but there could have been a question as respects the time 
 when he should be in paradise ; and the abverb to-day was designed to 
 answer that question , " To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise/ 1 It- 
 is an obvious principle of language that the qualifying word in a sentence 
 shall be applied to that part of the sentence which needs qualifying ; and 
 shalt be is that part in the sentence under consideration — shalt be in para 
 dise — when ? to-day. It follows, therefore, that Jesus did promise the 
 thief on the cross that he should be with him in paradise on the day of 
 their crucifixion. But where was that promise fulfilled ? Where was 
 paradise ? It could not have been the grave ; because, first, the term par- 
 adise is never applied to the grave ; second, Jesus promised the poor pen- 
 itent something more than a mere lodging in the grave ; and, third, they 
 were not together in the grave. It could not have been Heaven, for the 
 reason that Jesus did not ascend to Heaven for more than forty days after 
 he was crucified. On the third day after that event, he said to Mary, 
 '• Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father.'' It was not 
 until he had consumated his mission on earth that he ascended to Heaven. 
 There are two extremes on this point ; one is, that Jesus and the penitent 
 thief went immediately from the cross to Heaven ; the other that they 
 went into the grave in a state of unconsciousness. Neither of these posi- 
 tions do I regard as true. The truth generally lies between the two 
 extremes; and there we shall look for it in this case. 
 
 The body of Jesus was buried in Joseph's new tomb (taphos) but his 
 soul or spirit went to hell (hades) — the place of departed spirits between 
 death and the resurrection, and remained there during the three days and 
 nights in which his body lay in the tomb, or until his resurrection from 
 the dead. Hence Peter, speaking of his resurrection in Acts 2: 27, 
 quotes this language in relation to him : (C Thou wilt not leave my soul in 
 hell (hades) nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. " There would 
 be no propriety in talking about hming a soul where it had never been. 
 Hence the soul of Jesus was in hades between his death and his resurrec- 
 tion. We have seen that the thief was not with the body of Jesus, there- 
 fore he must have been with his soul; that is, the spirit of Jesus and the 
 spirit of the thief were together in paradise — in that part of hades allot- 
 ted to good spirits, called by the Jews " Abraham's bosom/' The other 
 part of hades was called tartarus, and there, we are informed in 2 Peter 
 2 : 4, " The fallen angels are reserved in chains to the day of Judgment.'' 
 
 Paradise simply means a state of happiness, irrespective of any partic- 
 ular locality. Hence it is applied to a park, the garden of Eden, the 
 third heavens, where Paul was caught up, the New Jerusalem, and Abra- 
 ham's bosom, or that part of hades allotted to good spirits between death 
 and the resurrection. This last definition is sustained by Greenfield, in 
 his Lexicon of the New Testament. Hades in the New Testament never 
 signifies the grave. Out of the eleven times which it occurs, it is but 
 once so translated, and that eroneously. 
 
24 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 I will now notice the gentleman's attempts to refute my arguments of 
 last evening. 
 
 1. I proved from Job 32 : 8, that the spirit in man is an intelligent 
 entity. But how did the gentleman answer my argument ? Why, by 
 simply denying it, and calling on me to prove it over again. But I see 
 no use of doing that ; for if the gentleman will not admit it when onse 
 proved, he will not when proved twice, or a dozen times. I will, there- 
 fore, leave the matter where it is for the present, believing that with all 
 intelligent persons my argument will outweigh his denial. 
 
 2. I proved from Zech. 12 : 1, not only that there is a spirit in man 
 distinct from his body, his influence, his feeling, or his breath, but also 
 that that spirit has a form ; that it is the spirit of man, and not the 
 spirit of all creation ; that it is formed within man, and not outside of 
 him. He attempted to answer this by quoting from Amos 4 : 13, where 
 it is said that God created the wind—-&s though creating the wind before 
 man had a being is equivalent to forming his spirit within him ! But the 
 passage he quoted is against him. It teaches that whatever is formed has 
 a form. Does not the gentleman believe that the mountains which God 
 formed have forms ? If so, why not believe that the spirit of man which 
 he has formed within him has a form also ? 
 
 3. I introduced the fact that those who have lost members were con- 
 scious of sensibility where those members one were, as corroborative 
 evidence, and I so stated the fact at the time ; but the gentleman says he 
 refuted that argument once in Boston. I do not contradict him, but I 
 have this much to say, that if he did refute it, the refutation never found 
 its way into the report of the debate. I regard it as a fact not easily re- 
 futed ; and although not sufficient of itself to prove that the spirit of 
 man has a form like the body, yet it goes far to corroborate the testimony 
 of Scripture and the general sentiment of mankind on the subject. The 
 gentleman will not deny that the idea that spirits have forms like the body 
 is one of general prevalence ; that it has existed in all ages and among all 
 nations. Will he be kind enough to inform us how this idea originated ? 
 According to his declaration last evening, he does not believe that men 
 have any ideas except what they get from without, through the medium of 
 the senses. How, then, did they get the idea that spirits have forms cor- 
 responding with the outlines of their bodies, unless such is the fact ? 
 The gentleman believes that God is a spirit, and yet that He has a form 
 like the human body. Why then should he deny that the human spirit 
 has a form ? Can not one spirit have a form as well as another ? 
 
 4. I proved from Ex. 35 : 21, and from Matt. 2G : 41, that the power 
 of volition or willing is attributed to the spirit of man. But my oppo- 
 nent says willing is a state of feeling. Well, suppose I grant it, what is 
 it that produces this state of feeling ? The text says, their spirits made 
 them willing. The willingness, then, is a state of feeling produced by the 
 spirit, and not the spirit itself. To test the absurdity of the gentleman's 
 definition, let us substitute it for the word spirit in the passage. It will 
 then read thus : all whose state of being willing made them willing, 
 which is absurd. 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 2o 
 
 5. I proved from John. 3 : 6, that it is the spirit of man which is the 
 subject of regeneration : u That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.-'' — 
 But my opponent denied this, and said that it was the Spirit of God in 
 the christian. Of course, then, it is the Spirit of God that is the sub- 
 ject of regeneration ! That is, the Spirit of God is born of himself ! 
 This is a new theory of regeneration. I suppose this is Elder Grant's 
 boasted method of harmonizing the Bible ! 
 
 6. I proved that spirits as well as angels were believed in by the Phar- 
 isees, and by the disciples of Christ, and that Jesus himself sanctioned 
 the existence of such entities by instituting a comparison between him- 
 self and a spirit. He had " flesh and bones," but a spirit has not — is 
 disembodied. The gentleman has two methods of replying to this argu- 
 ment : first, he claims that it was only a phantom that the desciples sup- 
 posed they saw ; but Jesus, when he speaks of it, calls it a pneuma, a 
 spirit, and says it " has not flesh and bones, as he had." Second : he 
 claims that the angels and spirits believed in by the Pharisees were one 
 and the same class of beings ; and introduces as a parallel the expression, 
 " our God and Father." But this intelligent audience must see that the 
 expressions are by no means parallel. We call God u our God and Fath- 
 er," because He sustains both of these relations to us ; just as I call a 
 a person who is a brother to me and at the same time a friend, my 
 brother and friend. But when we speak of two classes of beings or 
 things, connecting them together by the conjunction and, they are always 
 separate and distinct. 
 
 I will now attend to the gentleman's challenge. You know he chal- 
 lenged me on Sunday from this stand, and renewed the challenge again 
 last evening, to find one passage in the Bible where God has ever called 
 anything man but the body that He formed of the dust of the ground. 
 Here is his language verbatim, as I noted it down on Sunday : w God has 
 never called anything man from Genesis to Revelations but a body formed 
 of the dust of the ground. As my opponent is here, I hope he will make 
 a note of this, and bring it up in the discussion next week." He repeated 
 the same last evening; and now I accept his challenge. Let us read from 
 Gen. 18 : 2. " And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men 
 stood by him : and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the teat 
 door, and bowed himself toward the ground." These were the angels sent 
 to destroy Sodom ; and the word of God calls them men. They were not 
 formed of the dust of the ground. 
 
 Mr. Grant. I meant to except spirits from God. 
 
 Mr. Clayton. Your challenge, sir, was unqualified; and I take you at 
 your word. 
 
 Mr. Grant. Very well, if you wish to take advantage of an inad- 
 vertancy, you may proceed. 
 
 Mr. Clayton then proceeded : I will call your attention now to Gen. 
 32 : 24-30. And Jacob was left alone ; and there wrestled a man with 
 him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed 
 not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh ; and the hollow of 
 Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, 
 
26 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, 
 except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name ? And 
 he said, Jacob. And he said, thy name shall be called no more Jacob, 
 but Israel : for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and 
 haat prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, 
 thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my 
 name ? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the 
 place Peniel : for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." 
 Here is a being called by the word of God man that was not formed out 
 of the dust of the ground. Again, Joshua 5 : 13. " And it came to pass 
 that while Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes, and looked, 
 and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in 
 his hand : and Joshua went unto him, and said, Art thou for us, or for 
 our adversaries ? And he said, Nay ; but as captain of the host of the 
 Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did 
 worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant V And 
 the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off 
 thy foot ; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did 
 so. 1 ' Again, Judges, 13 : 6. " Then the woman came and told her hus- 
 band, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like 
 the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible ; but I asked him not 
 whence he was, neither told he me his name. 1 ' 
 
 In each of these cases, something is called man that was not formed of 
 the dust of the ground. But lest the gentleman should say he meant to 
 except these, we will find something in the New Testament which he can- 
 not except. Let us turn to Rom. 7 : 22. " For I delight in the law of 
 God after the inward man" Here is something called man which is in- 
 side of the body, which is contrasted with " the flesh" and " the mem- 
 bers," and which is called ' ; 'the mind/' Will the gentleman claim that 
 this was formed of the dust of the ground ? But again, 2 Cor. I : 10. 
 w - For which cause we faint not ; but though our outward man perish, yet 
 the inward man is renewed day by day." The outward man here is the 
 body, that which was formed of the dust of the ground, and while it Ls 
 perishing, or wasting away, the inward man is growing strouger, is being 
 renewed da}' by day. Again, 2 Cor. 12 : 2. '•" I knew a man in Christ 
 above fourteen years ago — -whether in the body or out of the body I cari- 
 na t tell, God knoweth — such an one caught up to the third heavens. I 
 knew such an one — -whether in the body or out of the body I cannot tell, 
 God knoweth — how that he was caught up to paradise, and heard unspeak- 
 able words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.' 1 Here the Apostle 
 calls that the man which is capable of being in the body and out of the 
 body, of being caught up without the body to the third heavens, to para- 
 dise, and of hearing words which it is not lawful for a man to utter. — 
 This surely is not that which was formed of the dust of the ground. — 
 Again, Eph. 3 : 1G. " That he would grant you. according to the riches 
 of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner 
 wml" Is this inner man which is strengthened by the might of the Holy 
 Spirit, according to the riches of God's glory, the dust organism, that was 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEA.D. 27 
 
 formed of the dust of the ground ? But this is not all : 1 Pet. 3 : 3. — 
 " Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of plaiting the hair, 
 and of wearing of gold, and of putting on of apparel ; but let it be the. 
 hidden man of the heart, in that whieh is not corruptible, even the orna- 
 ment of a meek and quiet spirit, which iu the sight of God is of great 
 price/' Here we have something called man which is not the outward 
 visible organism, but which is hidden down in the heart, mid which is 
 called the spirit. Nay, more than this : the Apostle assures us that this 
 hidden man of the heart is -: not corruptible.'' The Greek word render- 
 ed " not corruptible 1 ' here, is aphthartos, translated " incorruptible" and 
 " immortal;" and it is applied to God in Rom. 1 : 28, and 1 Tim. 1 : 19. 
 {; And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made 
 like to corruptible man/' " Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisi- 
 ble," &c. Hence the same attribute of immortality that is applied to God 
 is also applied to the hidden man of the heart, or spirit of man. If it 
 was the object of this discussion to prove the immortality of the soul or 
 spirit, that could be easily done from such passages as these ; but that is 
 not my object at present. I have undertaken to prove only this : that 
 the spirit of man is conscious between death and the resurrection. 
 
 My next argument in favor of this position is founded on 1 Pet. 3 : 
 18*20. " For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the un- 
 just, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but 
 quickened by the spirit ; by which also he went and preached to the 
 spirits in prison, which sometimes were disobedient ; when once the long- 
 suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, 
 wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water." The point in 
 tlii.-. passage is, that Christs' spirit made proclamation to the spirits of the 
 antediluvians in prison — that is, as I understand it, in hades. The ob- 
 vious import of the passage is, that Christ suffered the stroke of death, 
 iu the flesh, but survived it in the spirit, by which spirit "he went and 
 preached to the spirits in prison, who were disobedient when the long- 
 suffering of God waited in the days of Noah." Hence we have the con- 
 scious spirit of Christ preaching to the conscious spirits of the antedilu- 
 vians between death and the resurrection. This view of the subject is 
 sustained by a host of reputable authorities, among whom may be men- 
 tioned Bloomfield, in a note on this passage in his Critical Greek Testa- 
 ment ; Bishop Horsley, in his sermon on this text ; Dr. Landis, in his 
 work on the soul ; Titman, Prof, at Leipsic. Germany ; Turretin, a Gene- 
 ves Proffessor ; Flaeias Illyricus, in his Clavis, pp. 457 and iGli : Winer, 
 author of a Critical Grammer of the New Testament ; Olshausen, an 
 eminent German Commentator ; and Alford, author of a Critical Greek 
 Testament, just issued by Harper & Brothers of N. Y. Li the hands of 
 these authorities I will leave the criticism of the passage, believing that 
 it clearly sustains my position of the consciousness of the spirit between 
 death and the resurrection. 
 
 I will occupy the' remainder of my time in introducing another argu- 
 ment founded on Mark, 9:2. '< And after six days, Jesus taketh with 
 him Peter, and James and John, and leadeth them up into a high mouri- 
 
ZC DISCUSSION ON 
 
 tain apart by themselves; and lie was transfigured before them. And his 
 raiment became shining exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller on earth 
 can whiten them. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses, and 
 they were talking with Jesus,'' This passage plainly declares that Moses 
 and Elias appeared on the mountain of transfiguration, and that they talk- 
 ed with Jesus. I do not, of course, rely on the appearance of Elias to 
 prove the consciousness of the spirit after death ; for he was translated 
 bodily to heaven, without seeing death. But I do rely on the appearance 
 of Moses. He died in the wilderness of Moab in the top of mount 
 Pisgah, and Glod burried him there, over fourteen hundred years before 
 the transfiguration ; and we have no account of his resurrection from the 
 dead. If the gentleman claims that he was raised from the dead, and 
 appeared on the mountain in his body, he must prove his resurrection. — 
 And that I apprehend he cannot do. He cannot do away with the fact of 
 his appearance by calling it a vision merely ; for a vision is something 
 seen ; and Mark informs us that they appeared to them, and talked with 
 Jesus. 
 
 I have but a moment left, and I will occupy it in answering my oppo- 
 nent's reply to my argument that the body is the house or tabernacle 
 which the spirit occupies. I read from 2 Cor. 5 : 1-9 and from 2 Pet. 
 1 : 13-14. But the gentleman in order to meet my argument, claimed 
 that the body there, called the tabernacle, is the church of Christ, and 
 that the house from heaven is the New Jerusalem. Cf course, then, put- 
 ting off the body is putting off the Church. But when he came to the 
 passage in Peter, he found that his interpretation did not answer his pur- 
 pose quite so well. In connection with this passage in Peter, let me quote 
 from Rom. 8 :23. " Even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting 
 for the adoption, to-wit, the redemption of our body.-' Could the idea 
 of the double entity be brought out in plainer language? [Time expired.'] 
 
 FIRST SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 We are again referred to the Thief on the cross. We left the subject 
 last evening at the same point as did our friend on the other side. We 
 remarked that the Thief had no idea that the Savior was coming down 
 from the cross to establish his earthly kingdom. We do not see that he has 
 brought any proof to the contrary, excepting his assertion. The Scrip- 
 tures teach positively, that the Savior would not come into his kingdom 
 until after a long period of time. Many millions of the church were 
 slaughtered during the dark ages, and after that tribulation there were to 
 be signs of his second coming ; and when those things were seen, they 
 were to know that his kingdom was near. This he taught his disciples 
 before he hung upon the cross. 
 
 Another point was made upon the expression " to'-day." My brother 
 remarked that the comma suited his purpose very well where it is. I 
 should like to let it remain where it is, if it would harmonize the Bible. 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 91 
 
 • remarked last night, if we emphasize u to-day," and place the 
 comma after it. it makes out a very strong case. But when we 
 look at it in this position, it does not harmonize with the Bible, — ,; Re- 
 member me when thou comest into thy kingdom ;" and Jesus answered 
 and said, u Verily, I say unto thee to-day. thou shalt be with me in para- 
 dise. "' Our brother tells us that paradise was not in Heaven or the grave, 
 but in hades. We gave a Bible definition of hade*, — ■• Whatsoever thy 
 baud findeth to do, do it with thy might : for there is no work, nor device, 
 nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave (or hades) whither thou goest. v 
 My friend contended last evening, that the spirit returns to God as a 
 conscious entity. Is God, Mr. Chairman, in hum with Pluto, the heathen 
 god of the infernal region ? My opponent says, paradise is there. We 
 trace this doctrine of consciousness in hades back to the heathen. We 
 find it not taught in the whole Bible, but Solomon declares, there is no 
 knowledge nor device in hadts. because the heathen taught the opposite. — 
 Here we have a Bible definition of my opponents paradise, which is hades. 
 where there is no knowlodge or wisdom, and he yet contends that the spirit 
 goes there, and to God, therefore God is in hades ; and as there is no wis- 
 dom or device there, it must be a strange paradise indeed ! But the Bible 
 teaches no such paradise. The heathen divided hades into two parts, ho- 
 d's and tartaric. But tartan** is not a part of hades. The word occurs 
 but once in the whole Bible, which is in '2 Peter. 2 : 4. " God spared 
 not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to (tartarus) Hell, and 
 delivered them into chaius of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." — 
 The original word is tartaric. What does it mean ? The same as hades ? 
 Let us refer to good authorities on this point. Dr. William Kamsey 
 says, u The word tartarus means according to Greek writers, in a physical 
 sense, the bound or verge of this material system.' 1 He quotes the remark 
 from Lucian, an ancient writer of about the age in which Peter lived. — 
 Dr. B. remarks, — " that place is. probably at present within the atmos- 
 phere of our earth. '' The learned Balph Cudworth, D. D.. says, "By 
 tartarus here, in all probability is meant this lower calignous (/. e. s dark) 
 air. or atmosphere of the earth, according to that of St. Austin, concern- 
 ing these angels, " That after their sin, they were thrust down into the 
 mist}/ darkness of this lower air. And being thus for the present impris- 
 oned in this lower tartarus, or calignous (dark) air or atmosphere, they 
 are indeed here kept and reserved in custody, unto the judgment of the 
 great day. and general assizes." On other occasions, the Greek writers 
 speak of tartarus as in the air," hence the epithet. " Airy tartarus. One 
 thing is certain, the angels who have sinned are called evil spirits or de- 
 mons, and when the Savior was on earth, the demons addressed him and 
 he rebuked them. They are to be in tartarus, or about the earth till 
 the judgment ; not in the subterranean vaults of the earth. They talked 
 with him and were the first to declare that He was the Son of God. — 
 These demons, or evil angels, have manifested themselves from the ear- 
 liest history, even down to the present time ; and are now doing their 
 master work through mediums, all over the world. 
 
 Dr. Whitby, in his work on the Future State, when speaking of tar- 
 
30 DI8CUMSJON ON 
 
 tarus, says ! — " That the word used by Peter, which our translators 
 render ' cast down to hell,' or 4 tartarus,'' is to be understood of our dark 
 gloomy earth, with its dull clouds, foul vapors, misty atmosphere, may be 
 made to appear. Socrates called the abyss, or sea, tartar us, as does also 
 Plato, who elsewhere calls our dim, lock-luster earth itself also tartarus. 
 
 Plutarch says our air or atmosphere is called tartarus, from being 
 
 cold. Herein he is followed and supported by Lucian. And both Hesiod 
 and Homer call it the aerial tartarus. In no other sense nor way can St. 
 Peter be understood and explained." Lucian says " The great depth of 
 the air is called tartarus" As we remarked before, it is certain that 
 these angels are in tartarus at the present time, and manifested themselves 
 to our Savior when he was here upon the earth. The word tartaras means, 
 according to the Greek writers, in a physical sense, the verge or bound of 
 this material system. Now, sir, if tartarus is a part of hades, then Jiades 
 must be upon the earth. But in hades there is no knowledge nor wisdom, 
 nor device; and yet this is where spirits go, according to my brother 1 * 
 theory, when they return to God. 
 
 My frieiid referred again to spirit limbs. When a man's limb is cut 
 off, he remarked last evening, that there is a sensation of that limb re- 
 maining ; and that this sensation proves that there is a spirit limb there, 
 and that saws and knives, &c, can have no effect upon it. This may do 
 to talk, from the fact that it is so enveloped in mystery, that no one can 
 prove it; yet, after a while this sensation is gone : what becomes of the 
 spirit limb then V He says it was a general belief that spirits had forms ; 
 and asks, " how did men get this idea ?" How did men get the idea that 
 when the spirit left the body it went down to the infernal regions, and 
 had to be ferried over the river Styx, paying a little money to the Perry- 
 man, Charon, by whom they were carried into Pluto's dominions ? This 
 conies from hcathanism. How did they get this idea? Is it in the Bi- 
 ble ? How did men get the idea, that the vicegerent of Christ is at Rome V 
 Did they get it from the Bible t Men have got a good many ideas, they 
 never got from that book. We have traced this doctrine of the immortal 
 spirit back to the heathen ; and have the documents before us to prove its 
 origin if it were necessary to read them. 
 
 lie speaks of disembodied human spirits, and refers to the challenge we 
 made that God called nothing man but the organization which he made of 
 the dust of the ground. We had only reference to men as such. We admit 
 freely and frankly that angels have been mistaken for men. We are ex- 
 horted in the Bible to be hospitable to strangers, for by so doing, we may 
 entertain angels unawares. Now sir, if these are such spirits as my bro- 
 ther speaks of, how could we entertain them unawares and think them men V 
 We are told that they are immaterial, without body or parts ! How could 
 we entertain such at our tables ? We admit again, that angels have been 
 mistaken for men ; but repeat our assertion, that God calls nothing man, 
 when speaking of our race, but that which he made of the dust of the 
 ground. Daniel speaks of Gabriel, and said he had M the appearance of 
 a. man. 
 
 We are referred to some other passages which were spoken of last eve- 
 
THE STATU OF THE L'EID. 81 
 
 wing, concerning the " inward man." Is that, sir, a man inside of this 
 man ? Which is the man ? " The Lord God formed man of the ikist of 
 the ground." Is that true, Mr. Chairman ? 
 
 Mr. Clayton. I understand the spirit in the Scriptures is called a 
 man, sometimes the body, and sometimes both. 
 
 Mr. Grant. " The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.* 5 
 The question arises, is that man, or something to put a man into ? a 
 house to hold a man ? we are told that this spirit lives in the body just as 
 a man lives in a house ; and at death, this spirit goes to Hades, which is 
 paradise. " The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and 
 breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living 
 soul." What did he add to him ? " the breath of life"; and this he put 
 in man at the creation. If that is man, wherever we find " the breath 
 of life," we shall find a man ; whether in this hall, in the forest, or in any 
 other place. We read that both man and beast " have all one breath" ; 
 the same that God breathed into man's nostrils. That is what constitutes 
 him a living soul. What does God call man ? That which he formed 
 of the dust of the ground. Breathing ."the breath of life" into him, 
 caused him to live. Suppose he takes away the breath, what then ? — 
 " Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled, Thou takest away their breath, 
 they die, and return unto their dust." 
 
 The same word is rendered spirit. " There is a spirit in man ; and (he 
 inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding ; not it, but them ; 
 not the spirit that is in man, but them. Does the man go away when " the 
 breath of life" leaves him ? 
 
 We are referred to 2 Cor. 12 : 2. Paul " knew a man in Christ above 
 fourteen years ago, whether in the body I cannot tell, or whether out of 
 the body I cannot tell." 
 
 How does this bear on the question ? Our proposition refers to man 
 after death. Paul, had not died. We understand Paul to mean, that he 
 did not know whether he was carried there bodily, or whether he saw it 
 in vision as people see things in dreams. Am I carried off when I dream 
 of speaking to friends in the night season ? The Bible declares that 
 when the spirit or breath leaves man, he dies, and " in that rery day his 
 thoughts perish." 
 
 My brother thinks 1 Pet. 3 : 18-20 proves that the spirit is conscious 
 between'death and the resurrection. The passage reads : " For Christ also 
 hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us 
 to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit : By 
 which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison : Which 
 sometimes were disobedient, when once the longsuftering of God waited 
 in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, 
 eight souls were saved by water." 
 
 My friend contends that the spirit of Christ, after he was laid in Jo- 
 seph's tomb, preached to the spirits in hades. What follows ? why, that 
 the Saviour went down to preach to them in hades to tantalize those irre- 
 deemable souls with a hope of pardon ; for what did he preach if he did 
 not preach the gospel ? let us look at this a little more carefully. " Put 
 
32 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit." By'what spirit ? — 
 The one that brought him from the dead, " by which ' also he went and 
 
 preached" "in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, 
 
 wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water." We might bring- 
 as many authorities, if we had our books here, as our brother. Let me 
 quote from Thompson's translation : " Brought to life by that spirit with 
 which he went, and to the spirits which are [now ] in prison, made proc- 
 lamation at the time they were disobedient." When was that ? " When 
 the longsuffering of God was waiting once for all in the days of Noah, 
 while the ark was a building." In the record of the death of the antedi- 
 luvians we read : " all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, 
 and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth 
 upon the earth, and every man : all in whose nostrils, was the breath of life, 
 of all that was in the dry land, died." " And Noah only remained alive, 
 and they that were with him in the ark." The Bible says, the deluge 
 destroyed all living things. Does my brother contend that beasts have 
 a spirit which goes to hades ? All died, both man and beast. If only 
 man's body dies, then, only the beasts' body dies ; and Satan told the 
 truth, when he said " Ye shall not surely die." God said, " Thou shalt 
 surely die." And he addressed the conscious part, when he said it. — 
 Satan contradicts, and says, " Ye shall not surely die." Then if the 
 spirit is alive, Satan told the truth, and the lie falls back upon our Crea- 
 tor. We return to 1 Pet. 3 : 18-20. The Geneva translation reads, 
 " By the which spirit." An old paraphrase of this reads : — " suffering 
 death, indeed, in the flesh, but restored to life by the spirit of God ; by 
 whose afflatus (spirit) in the primitive ages of the world he delivered sol- 
 emn admotions to those who are now in the state of the dead ; but these 
 repeated warnings they rejected, though God in the days of Noah waited 
 their repentance during the whole time the ark was constructing, in which 
 eight souls escaped the general inundation." 
 
 We are next referred to Moses and Elias, and are told it was Moses' 
 spirit which was on the mount. We challenge the proof that it was 
 Moses' spirit. If he was actually there, then he was as truly so, as 
 Elijah. If the body is the house or tabernacle for the ^spirit, then 
 Elijah and Enoch were obliged to take their prison houses with them. — 
 Others could die and go to paradise without their prison bodies, but these 
 good men had to take their prison houses with them. How did they gain 
 them ? by being translated. If Moses was really upon the mount of 
 transfiguration, he had a resurrection from the dead. Hence we read, 
 " Michael and the Devil disputed about the body of Moses." Jude 9. — i 
 But the Saviour calls it a vision ; the same as Paul had when he saw in a 
 vision a man from Macedonia, saying " come over and help us." In vis- 
 ion John saw a new heavens and a new earth, but they have not yet be- 
 come realities. He saw them as they will appear. So at the transfigura- 
 tion, Moses and Elias appeared in vision, as they will appear in the coming 
 kingdom. 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 33 
 
 SECOND SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON. 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 Before entering upon my affirmative arguments, I deem it expedient to 
 notice a few things which my opponent has said. He objects to my posi- 
 tion respecting the penitent thief; that lie could have had no other idea of 
 the kingdom than that it was to be a literal monarchy in Jerusalem, and 
 that Jesus would come down from the cross and establish it; but he does 
 not bring any proof to the contrary. He fails to show that even the 
 disciples had any better idea of it. He refers to several passages of scrip- 
 ture to prove that Jesus taught them better; but that is no proof that they 
 understood what he taught them. Indeed, the very opposite is the fact. — 
 How often He upbraided them for their dullness and want of comprehen- 
 sion ! " fools, and slow of heart to believe" ! They did not believe that 
 Jesus was to die until the event itself proved it. They did not believe he 
 was to rise from the dead till he actually appeared among them; and when 
 the women reported that he was risen, the statement li seemed to them as 
 idle tales, and they believed them not." They supposed the kingdom was 
 to be a restoration of the Jewish monarchy down to the time of his de- 
 parture from them; and the last thing they asked him was: " Lord, wilt 
 thou at this time restore again tho kingdom to Israel'' ? It was not until 
 after they had received the Holy Spirit in its full effulgence from on high, 
 and had been instructed by special visions and revelations, that their minds 
 awoke to a full appreciation of these great truths of the kingdom. And if 
 such was the blindness of the disciples, what must have been that of the 
 poor ignorant thief? I repeat it, ho could have had no other idea of the 
 kingdom than that which I have indicated. That he believed Jesus to be 
 the true Messiah is evident from his calling him " Lord." And believing 
 him to be the true Messiah, and that his enemies could not put him to 
 death, he expected he would manifest his power in a manner more extra- 
 ordinary than he ever yet had done, by coming down from the cross and 
 establishing his kingdom in spite of the opposition of his enemies. 
 
 The gentleman rings all the changes on the word sheol. Because there 
 is " no wisdom, nor knowledge, nor device in sheol" therefore he concludes 
 there is none in hades. But let us see. I will present to the gentleman's 
 astonished vision three persons in hades, in a slate of consciousness; name- 
 ly, Abraham, the Rich Man and Lazarus; and all of them after death. — 
 The death of Abraham is recorded in the book of Genesis; " Lazarus died, 
 and was carried by the angels into Abraham's Bosom; the Rich Man also 
 died, and w r as burried, and in hades he lifted up his eyes, being in tor- 
 ments. And seeing Abraham afar oftj he cried and said, Father Abraham 
 nave mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger 
 in water and cool my tongue ; for I am tormented in t-his flame. But 
 Abraham said, son, remember that thou in thy life time received thy good 
 things, but likewise Lazarus the evil things; and now he is comforted, and 
 thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a 
 great gulph fixed ; so that they which would pass from hence to you, can- 
 not; neither can they pass to us, who would come from thence. Then he 
 3 
 
34 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 said, I pray thee, Father, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house ; 
 for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also 
 come into this place of torment. Abiaham saith unto him, They have 
 Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, Father 
 Abraham ; but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent, — 
 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither 
 will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." Luke 16 : 19. 
 
 I claim that this is a true representation of the state of the dead ; that 
 Abraham, the Rich Man, and Lazarus are all disembodied spirits in hades. 
 And hence, the gentleman can now perceive the use I have for the spirit 
 fingers and the spirit tongue. But, the question arises, is hades a real 
 place ? I answer, yes. Jesus says the Rich Man lifted up his eyes in hades, 
 and he wishes that Lazarus may be sent to warn his five brethren, lest they 
 should come to this place of torment. Hades is therefore a real place ; no 
 matter whether the gentleman can find a locality for it or not; and the 
 condition of Abraham, the Rich Man and Lazarus in hades, proves beyond 
 a reasonable doubt the truth of my proposition, that the spirit of man re- 
 mains in a conscious state separate from the body between death and the 
 resurrection. 
 
 My opponent, however, takes the position that this is all parabolic. Ac- 
 cording to his view of the matter, the Rich Man represents the Jewish 
 people, and Lazarus the Gentile nations; but as these make up all the 
 world, it is somewhat difficult to find any body to represent the five breth- 
 ren. The genius of the gentleman, however, has triumphed over the diffi- 
 culty; and he finds the representative of the Jive brethren in the ten lost 
 tribes of Israel, who were carried captive by Shalmanezer, king of Assyria, 
 seven hundred and twenty-one years before Christ. " They," he says in 
 his tract on this subject, " were not joined with the Jews (the other two 
 tribes) in condemning and crucifying the Saviour; and therefore they are 
 represented as being in a safer and better condition than the Rich Man. 
 We ihink Paul refers to them when he says: * Brethren my hearts desire 
 and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.' When they 
 went into captivity, they took the scriptures with them; hence it is said, 
 4 they have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' " 
 
 Now, if I can prove that these ten tribes returned to their own country 
 at the restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah, then of course, the gentle- 
 man's theory falls to the ground. Let us see what the scriptures teach on 
 this point. Ezek. Si : 16-22. " The word of the Lord came unto me say- 
 ing, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For 
 Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions ; then take another 
 stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the 
 house of Israel, his companions; and join them one to the other, into one 
 stick ; and they shall become one in thy hand. And when the children of 
 thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou 
 meanest by this? Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God. Behold I will 
 take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whether they be 
 gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own 
 land ; and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. - 35 
 
 Israel, and one king shall be king to them all, and they shall be no more 
 two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more." — 
 This union of the two sticks was a beautiful symbolical representation of 
 the union of Judah and Israel, when they should be restored to their own 
 country. Now let us see when that was to take place. Turn to Jeremiah 
 50: 1. " The word that the Lord spake against Babylon and against the 
 land of the Chaldeans by Jeremiah the prophet. Declare ye among the 
 nations, and publish, and set up a standard: publish and conceal not; say, 
 Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her 
 idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces. For out of the 
 north there cometh up a nation against her that shall make her land deso- 
 late, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall depart 
 both man and beast." This was written at the time of the captivity ; and 
 is a prediction of the overthrow of Babylon by the Medo-Persians under 
 Cyrus. Now mark what follows : " In those days, and at that time, saith 
 the Lord, the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah 
 together, going and weeping; they shall go and seek the Lord their God. 
 They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, 
 and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not 
 be forgotten." As soon as the Medo-Persians had conquored Babylon and 
 subjugated the Assyrian Empire, a decree was issued by Cyrus for the res- 
 toration of " all the people of God," which included both Judah and Israel, 
 to return to their own country. This decree was afterwards renewed by 
 Darius; Ezra 6: 1, and also by Artaxerxes Longimanus; Ezra 7 : 11. — 
 And now, to prove that they did return according to this prophecy, we 
 have only to refer to the history of the fact, as recorded in Nehemiah 
 7:73. "So the priests, and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, 
 and some of the people, and the Nethinims, and all Israel, dwelt in their 
 cities; and when the seventh mouth came, the children of Israel were in 
 their cities." Again, in the 9th. chap, and 2nd. verse: " And the seed of 
 Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed 
 their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers." In addition to these facts, 
 let it be noted that the Apostle James addressed his general epistle to the 
 " twelve tribes," or to converts from among the twelve tribes; thus showing 
 that in his day the ten tribes were not lost. Nothing can be clearer, there- 
 fore, than that the ten tribes of Israel returned to their own country with 
 the children of Judah and Benjamin, at the time of the general restoration 
 under Ezra and Nehemiah, and that they were all united in rejecting and 
 crucifying the Messiah. Hence the gentleman's theory of the " five breth- 
 ren" falls to the ground. •* 
 
 But this is not the only difficulty in the way of his parabolic interpreta- 
 tion. The rich man died and so did Lazarus; but he makes this one word 
 death to represent two opposite facts ; namely, the rejection of the Jews 
 and the reception of the Gentiles ! If the one was death, surely the other 
 ought to be called life ; for they are exactly opposites. 
 
 But let us look at what he says of the " great gulf," which was "fixed" 
 between the two parties, and which could not be passed over. He says it 
 is the " New Covenant, established upon better promises, of which Jesus 
 
3b DISCUSSION" ON" 
 
 was the mediator. 1 ' If this be true, then, of course, the Jews could not 
 become Christians, nor could the Christians become Jews; there could be 
 no leaving Judaism and coming over to Christianity, nor any leaving Christi- 
 anity and going over to Judaism; for the " gun n between the rich man 
 and Lazarus, was an impassible one. " Between us and you there is a 
 great gulf fixed, so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, 
 neither can they pass to us who would come from thence." This language 
 represents the respective parties as not being allowed to pass over the 
 " gulph," however desirous they might be to do so. Does not the gentleman 
 believe that the Jews could become Christians if they desired to, and that 
 Christians could become Jews, if they were so disposed? Does he believe 
 it impossible to pass from Judaism to Christianity, and from Christianity to 
 Judaism? If so, "the middle wall of partition" has been set up instead of 
 " broken down." But such is not the fact. Multitudes of Jews came over 
 to Christianity in the primitive age of the Church, and multitudes of them, 
 under the influence of persecution and Judaizing teachers, went back to 
 Judaism again. Thus, according to the gentleman's theory, they were con- 
 tinually passing and repassing over an impassible gulf! Such is the ab- 
 surdity of his parabolic interpretation. We insist that it is not a parable, 
 but a literal statement of facts. Jesus says " there was a certain rich man, 
 who was clothed in purple and fine linen, <fec, and there was a certain beg- 
 gar, who sat at the rich man's gate." Not a word is said in the New Tes- 
 tament about its being a parable. The Jews could not have regarded it in 
 that light; for they understood "Abraham's bosom" to be that part of 
 hades alloted to the spirits of the good between death and tho resurrection ; 
 as we are informed by Joseph us in his treaties on hades, Book 18 chap. 1. 
 And I affirm that when Jesus used this phrase, he used it in its ordinary 
 acceptation. It is one of the fundamental canons of interpretation, " that 
 every word not otherwise explained by an author or speaker, shall be taken 
 in its current acceptation at the time when that author or speaker used it." 
 If this rule of interpretation be denied, then there is no confidence to be 
 put in dictionaries of ancient languages, nor in the translation of any an- 
 cient book, sacred or profane; for they are all made on the assumption of 
 the truth of this rule. Hence, in ascertaining the meaning of any word, 
 we have only two questions to ask: first, what was the current signification 
 of the word at the time when it was used f and, second, did the writer or 
 speaker give any special definition of it ? To the first of these questions 
 we have already found an answer. We have seen that, according to Jose- 
 phtts, the phrase " Abraham's bosom," at the time when Christ used it, 
 signified ftiat part of hades alloted to good spirits. We have only to en- 
 quire, then, did Jesus or his Apostles give any special definition of it. I 
 answer, no — never. Such was always their method when they used any 
 word or phrase in an extraordinary sense. When the word " temple" was 
 used to signify the body of Christ; the word " water" to signify the Holy 
 Spirit; the phrase " lifted up" to signify by what death he should die; the 
 word " leaven" to signify the doctrine of the Pharisees; and the word " sleep" 
 to signify death, they do not omit to explain their meaning, so that all may 
 understand. Hence Jesus must have used the phrase " Abraham's bosom" 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 
 
 37 
 
 in the sense in which it was understood by the Jews of his time, or he 
 would have explained what he did mean by it. 
 
 The gentleman sneers at the idea of a disembodied spirit; and asks, 
 " Who has seen or felt one?' 1 I wonder if he does not believe in any- 
 thing but what he can see. and taste, and handle ! Has he no faith? that 
 he must walk altogether by Ins senses ? Paul said, " We walk by faith, 
 not by sight;'' but the gentleman refuses to walk by faith. He says, 
 " Show us a spirit, and we will be satisfied. v Why does he not ask the 
 same in relation to God and angels "i He believes in these, he says; and 
 yet, he does not claim that he has ever seen them. 
 
 I believe there is such a place as tartaw.18, not because I have ever 
 seen it, or can tell whore it is bx-.tel but because the word of God as- 
 sures me there is such a place. 1\ ter says, k> God spared not the angels 
 that sinned, but cast them down to tartarus, and reserved them in chains 
 to the day of Judgment. Is God a real being? are angels real beings ? 
 Ls sin a real thing? is the day of Judgment a reality ? If so, tartarm 
 is a real place ; let the gentleman say what he will about it. 
 
 My opponent places a great deal of stress on his favorite passage from 
 Psalms 1-1(3 : 3-4. ,; Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, 
 in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth ; he returneth to his 
 earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. " That " thoughts" in this 
 passage are designs or purposes, is evident from the first part of the verse, 
 which advises us not to " put our trust in the son of man in whom there 
 is no help.'' He may have thoughts of kindness towards us; he may 
 purpose to assist us; but death will cut short all his designs; in that very 
 day all his thoughts of kindness towards us perish. I may have thoughts 
 of building a fine mansion, furnishing it richly, and retiring from public 
 life to spend the remainder of my days in ease and pleasure ; but death 
 comes upon me suddenly, cutting short my designs, and in that very day 
 all these thoughts perish. James speaks of a certain class who had such 
 thoughts. " Come now, you that say, to-day or to-morrow we will go 
 into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get 
 gain; whereas you know not what will fee on the morrow. For what is 
 your life ? It is even as a vapor, which appeareth for a little time, and. 
 then vanisheth away." Thousands of such thoughts perish eveiw day in 
 death ; but that does not prove that the dead are unconscious. I have 
 proved to you by the case of the penitent thief, of Moses on the mount of 
 transfiguration, of the Rich Man and Lazarus, and of the spirits in prison, 
 that the spirit of man is conscious between death and the resurrection. 
 
 My friend, Mr. Grant, however, claims that the spirit of Christ (that 
 is the Holy Spirit) preached through Noah to the antediluvians. Such 
 may be the case. I do not dispute that the Holy Spirit strove with those 
 sinners in the days of Noah, and through his preaching. He was a. 
 preacher of righteousness for a hundred and twenty years;' and God said 
 in connection with that matter, " My spirit shall not always strive with 
 man."'' But I do dispute that Peter had reference to this in the passage 
 cited; and from the authorities introduced there are others of better criti- 
 cal ability than I can boast of. who dispute it too. 
 
38 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 1. It was Christ's own personal spirit, and not the Holy Spirit that 
 did the preaching. 
 
 2. It was to "spirits in prison," and not to men and women in the flesh, 
 that the preaching was done. 
 
 3. It was after Christ was " put to death in the flesh," and not in the 
 days of Noah that he preached to the spirits. They were " disobedient" 
 in the days of Noah. 
 
 I wish to ask the gentleman, how could the spirits have been in prison 
 in the days of Noah, unless he will take my position, that the body is a 
 house, and a prison at that ? But he denies this, and even ridicules it, 
 notwithstanding it is a Bible doctrine. The obvious import of the pas- 
 sage is that " Christ suffered the shock of death in the flesh, (his body 
 died) but survived it in the spirit, (his spirit lived) by which spirit he 
 went and preached to the spirits in prison, (in hades) who were disobe- 
 dient when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah." — 
 Now the question is, were these spirits conscious or not ? If not, how 
 could the spirit of Jesus preach to them? Did the spirit of Jesua 
 preach to uncanscious beings ? I could hardly suppose my friend, Mr. 
 Grant, capable of committing such a blunder. The gentleman may, if 
 he chooses, carry out the idea a little further, and get up a post mortem 
 gospel ; but I will not be responsible for that. I solemnly avow my be- 
 lief that this present state of existance is the only place of probation ; 
 that the gospel is designed for, and adapted to man as he is, in this life ; 
 and that if he does not avail himself of its blessings here, he will never 
 have an opportunity of doing so in the world to come. Still, I believe 
 the spirit of Jesus made some kind of proclamation to the spirits of the 
 antediluvians in prison. The record does not tell what he preached ; and 
 where the record is silent, I will be silent also. I do not, of course, sup- 
 pose that he preached to them " repentance and remission of sins." 
 
 I understand the " prison" to be hades. But in what sense is hades a 
 prison. The spirits of both good and bad are reserved in its precincts till 
 the resurrection and the final Judgment, when all Avill be judged accor- 
 ding to the deeds done in the body, and assigned their eternal destiny 
 either in Heaven or hell (gehenna). In the mean time, in hades, they 
 suffer torment, or enjoy comfort only in a limited degree. Lazarus, we 
 are informed, was " comforted," but the Rich Man was " tormented." — 
 But how are they comforted or tormented in hades? Suppose two men 
 to be lodged in prison to await their trial at the sitting of the court. 
 One is innocent ; the other is guilty. The innocent one is comforted by 
 a sense of his innocence, knowing that if justice is done him at his trial, 
 he will be acquitted. But the guilty one is tormented by a sense of his 
 guilt, knowing full well that if justice is done him at his trial, he will be 
 condemned. Now the spirits both of the good and the bad who are in 
 hades awaiting the Judgment of the Great Day, know that the strictest 
 justice will be meted out to them ; because Jesus Christ is to be their 
 Judge. He cannot err in the decisions of his tribunal. He will " give 
 to every man according as his works shall be found." [Time Expired \ 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 39 
 
 SECOND SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 My opponent lias used some ridicule ; and we generally suppose that 
 when a man uses that, he is hard pushed for argument. 
 
 Mr. Clayton. Such conclusions might be mistaken ones. 
 
 Mr. Grant then prodeeded: My opponent dwelt again on the idea that 
 the Thief expected the Savior to come down from the cross and set up his 
 kingdom. The Scripture is \ery plain, showing that the Savior and the 
 Apostles understood each other on this subject; for they have written what 
 the Savior spoke, and we will not dwell upon our brother's novel idea. — 
 The thief does not say, " remember me when thou comest down from the 
 cross" but " remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." And 
 we are prepared to say he has not come yet. 
 
 My oppouent comes next to the Rich Man and Lazarus, and asserts it is 
 not a parable, but a matter of fact ; and also asserts that hades is never 
 used correctly to represent the grave. Mr. Chairman, we assert boldly, that 
 it is never used correctly to represent a place of conscious, departed spirits. 
 It may be used as a figure to represent a political or moral grave, and lit- 
 erally, the state of the dead. 
 
 My friend ridicules our idea about sheol and hades. He says " we come 
 to sheol, and go to sheol and think sheol, and act sheol, and that sheol is 
 never out of our heads." Mr. Chairman, we are not to bo sneered down. 
 We are not to be ridiculed out of a Bible argument. The Bible declares, 
 and we repeat it again, and the gentleman may sneer at it if he pleases, 
 that in sheol or hades, there is no knowledge. 
 
 We now turn to the parable ; for if there is any passage in the Bible 
 which teaches consciousness in death, it is this. This is one of the main 
 Scriptures used to prove the immortality of the spirit. 
 
 "It came to pass that the beggar died" Did he die, Mr. Chair- 
 man? It we take it as a fact, we must take it all literally. Says the wise 
 man, "the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not any- 
 thing." Then the beggar knew " not anything," when dead. My brother 
 may say that the body does not know anything. David declares, that the 
 day a man dies, " his thoughts perish." My brother says it means thoughts 
 about building houses, &e. The Bible does not say so. He admits a cer- 
 tain blow would make him unconscious; but claims that a harder one, 
 which would knock out his brains, would make him wiser than ever. If he 
 would know so much more when dead than alive, why did not God make 
 men dead in the first place \ When points are so diametrically opposite 
 as the statements of Scripture and those of my opponent, what shall we 
 do ? believe the Bible or his assertion ? " The beggar died and teas carried. 11 
 
 That which "died was carried" if we take it literally. Suppose we 
 
 say a man died in the street and they carried him into the house. Would 
 you suppose they took the spirit and left the body ? 
 
 " The Rich Man also died and was buried." Buried where ? In hades. 
 What is his condition? They do not know anything there. "And in 
 hades he^ lifted up his eyes being in torments." — Then they buried him 
 
40 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 alive. " He lifted up his eyes." Who ? That one that was buried. They 
 buried the Rich Man, not the Rich Man's spirit. " And he lifted up his 
 eyes being in torments,'' in the grave — in hades — in the place where there 
 is no knowledge nor device, nor wisdom. 
 
 But we are told it was the beggar's spirit that was carried. There is 
 not one word about spirit in the whole account. But let us see if we can 
 make sense by inserting the word spirit. " It came to pass that the [body 
 of the] beggar died, and [his spirit] was carried by the angels into Abra- 
 ham's bosom; the [body of the] rich man also died, and [his spirit] was 
 buried. And in hell, [hades, the grave] he lifted up his [spiritual] eyes, 
 being in torments, and seeth [the spirit of ] Abraham afar off, and [the 
 spirit of] Lazarus in his [spiritual] bosom. And he cried and said, father 
 Abraham [let thy spirit] have mercy on me, and send [the spirit of] Laz- 
 arus, that he may dip the tip of his [spirit's] finger in [literal] water and 
 cool my [spiritual] tongue." This is my brother's theology, but it sounds 
 ridiculous. 
 
 Suppose we take my opponent and put him alive into a metallic coffin, 
 seal it hermetically, then put that into another one two feet thick, sealing 
 it in the same manner; where shall I look for my opponent? In the coffin? 
 in hades ? or where ? He tells us that this spirit will go out of these me- 
 tallic coffins, no matter how thick they are. We call for proof. We hold 
 Mr. Chairman, there is nothing leaves man at death but " the breath of life." 
 There is no account in the Bible that any thing else was put into him when 
 he was made, consequently there is nothing else to leave him, but the 
 breath or spirit of life, when he dies. Remember, Job says, " the spirit of 
 God is in my nostrils." Is the man in his own nostrils? Has this spirit 
 a body, arms, and fingers? 
 
 We are told there is no proof that the account of the Rich Man is a par- 
 able. A manuscript of the seventh century commences as follows : " And 
 he spake also another parable;" "there was a certain rich man," &c. An- 
 other manuscript of the tenth ceutuary reads, " the Lord spoke this para- 
 ble." " There was a certain rich man," &c. Mr. Chairman, you perceive 
 my opponent bases the whole strength of his arguments on the evidence 
 that it is not a parable. 
 
 He asserts that the ten tribes returned. This is a new idea to me. He is 
 the first man I have ever heard take that position. The best and. 
 ablest writers, both in Europe and America, claim that the ten lost 
 tribes have not returned. In the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam 
 they were carried into captivity; and we call for the record of their return. 
 There were some Israelites that did not go into captivity, who associated 
 with the ten tribes of Judah and Benjamiu, who were carried to Babylon 
 and returned to build their city. My friend endeavors to prove that the 
 return of Israel is in the pastj from Ezekiel 37: 16-22. If my brother 
 had begun to read at the beginning of the subject, he would have seen that 
 the resurrection of the dead takes place before Israel and Judah are united 
 into " one nation." Let us read : — 
 
 " The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit 
 of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 41 
 
 bones, and caused me to pass by them roundabout; and, behold, there 
 wena very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he 
 said unto me, son of man, can these bones live ? And I answered, O Lord 
 God thou knowest. Again he said unto me, prophesy upon these bones, 
 and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus 
 saith the Lord God unto these bones; behold, I will cause breath to enter 
 into you, and ye shall live; and I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring 
 up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye 
 shall live ; and ye shall know that I am the Lord. So I prophesied as I 
 was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a 
 shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I be- 
 held, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered 
 them above ; but there was no breath in them. Then, said he unto me, 
 prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, thus 
 saith the Lord God ; come from the four winds, breath, and breathe upon 
 these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as lie commanded me, 
 and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their 
 feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto me. Son of man, these 
 bones are the whole house of Israel ; behold, they say, our bones are dried, 
 and our hope is lost; we arc cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and 
 and say unto them, thus saith the Lord God; behold, O my people, I will 
 open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring 
 you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, 
 when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out 
 of your graves, and shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall 
 place you in your own land; then shall ye know that I the Lord have spo- 
 ken it, and performed it, saith the Lord." 
 
 " The word of the Lord came again unto me saying, moreover, thou son 
 of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, for Judah, and for the chil- 
 dren of Israel his companions; then take another stick, and write upon it, 
 for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his com- 
 panions; and join them one to another into one stick; and they shall De- 
 come one in thine hand. 11 
 
 The words rendered breath, wind and spirit in these passages are from 
 the same word in the original — reach . After the resurrection they have 
 one king over them, heuceforward and forever. 
 
 \ We thinkVe have shown that the literal construction of the parable is 
 not valid. It proves too much. The Rich Man was buried in a place where 
 nothing was known, which contradicts the literal account. 
 
 My opponent speaks of the gulf, and ridicules the idea that it refers to 
 the new T covenant. In this parable Christ takes up the Jewish nation as a 
 whole^ not each particular individual. The Jews as a whole went to Baby- 
 lon, but there were some individuals that were not carried there. They are 
 spoken of in the aggregate. We remarked, we understood the gulf to be 
 the covenant of which Christ was the mediator. He says in the verse 
 preceding the parable, "Whosoever putleth away his wife, and marrieth an- 
 other, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away 
 from her husband committeth adultery." Why has he introduced this 
 
42 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 subject here ? Is it to state that fact? Paul says, in Rom. 7: 1-4; — 
 " Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how 
 that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth ? For the 
 woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long 
 as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her 
 husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another 
 man,* she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband be dead, she is 
 free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to 
 another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the 
 law b) the body -of Chiist; that ye should be married to another, even to 
 him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto 
 God." In the fourth verse we have Paul's application. Says Christ to 
 the Jews, "the law aud the prophets were until John." The Jews went back 
 to the old covenant and committed adultery. They will not be married to 
 Christ, and this gulf seperates Jews and Gentiles to this day. They 
 have not as a nation heYieved in Christ. They can embrace Christ, but 
 they cannot bring their law with them. We cannot go backwards and 
 forwards from the law to the gospel, just as we please. 
 
 In the beginning of the 15th chapter of Luke, the charge is brought 
 against Chiist, that he "receiveth sinners and eateth with them." He 
 pleads guilty, and illustrates his position by the parable of the lost sheep; 
 but in the 8th verse, by the parable of the lost piece of silver. In these 
 parables, he shows the Jews that, when they lose sheep or money, they seek 
 for them, and rejoice when they are found. In the 12th verse, he introdu- 
 ces the parable of the prodigal son. The elder brother, like the Rich Man, 
 we understand, represents the Jews; and the younger, the Gentiles. The 
 elder brother remained at home; the younger went away into a far coun- 
 try, and spent his patrimony in dissipation; then he returned home, and 
 was welcomed by his father with joy. The elder brother is mad, and will 
 not go in and receive him. He shows the Jews by these parables, that, 
 when they lose a sheep, or a piece of money, they seek for them and re- 
 joice when they are found. But when a lost man is recovered, they are 
 angry. 
 
 In the first part of the IGth chapter, he introduces the parable of the 
 unjust steward, and thereby teaches his disciples to beware of covetousness. 
 This brings us to verse 14: — " And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, 
 heard all these things; and they derided him. And he said unto them, 
 ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your 
 hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination 
 in sight of God. For the law aud the prophets were until John." W"e 
 next come to the illustration by the marriage relation, and the parable of 
 the Rich Man, which illustrates the condition of the Jews and Gentiles for 
 the last eighteen hundred years. Says Wakefield, an able translator: — ■ 
 " To them who regard the narration as a reality, it must stand as an unan- 
 swerable argument for the purgatory of the Papists^ The 14th and 15th 
 verses show that the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus was given to 
 the Pharisees, whom he taught in parables. As this is a parable, the 
 death is not a literal death. In the parable of the tares and wheat, the 
 
THE STATE OP THE DEAD. 43 
 
 tares do not represent literal tares, nor the wheat literal wheat. Wo be- 
 lieve that the death of the Rich Man represents the political death of the 
 Jews; and if one wishes to read an account of their torments, let him turn 
 to the 28th chapter of Deut. In this chapter, the Lord gives a long cat- 
 alogue of curses that he would send upon the Jews if they would not serve 
 him. This chapter gives a full description of the torments of the Rich Man. 
 
 The beggar was not buried. He died to his idolitrous practices, was ele- 
 vated, turned to Christ, and was brought into the Abrahamic covenant. — 
 For, says Paul, "If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs 
 according to the promise." For the last eighteen hundred years, the Gen- 
 tiles have been elevated, and have trodden down the Jews. They have 
 burned their cities and slaughtered their children. They have been scat- 
 tered throughout the world because of their rejection of Christ. They 
 could rejoice, as we have remarked, over sheep recovered, or money found ; 
 but when the prodigal Gentiles returned they were angry. They crucified 
 the Savior who came to redeem them, and he left their house desolate. — 
 Above all people, they have felt the curse of God, and are still in tor- 
 ments. 
 
 As the Rich Man represents the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, so 
 the five brethren, we understand, represent the ten lost tribes who wore 
 carried captive, and have not returned to this day. Some think those tribes 
 are in Asia, some in Africa, and some writers suppose we are their descend- 
 ants, but none but my brother, that I know of, say they have returned. 
 
 If we can prove that one man is mortal we prove that all men are. We 
 read in John 11: 14; "Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is 
 dead." He then inquired, " where have ye laid him." Said they, " com© 
 and see;" and he came "to the grave." He requested them to roll away 
 the stone from the sepulchre. Jesus " cried with a loud voice, Lazarus 
 come forth." Where was Lazarus then ? In the spirit land ? The Bible 
 says he was dead and in his grave. Not Lazarus' house but Lazarus him- 
 self was dead. Jesus cried "come forth; and he that was dead, came 
 
 forth," and "the people therefore that was with him when he called Laza- 
 rus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record." Let my 
 oppouent impeach the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ, or admit that 
 Lazarus was dead. Christ did not bring him up from hades, or down 
 from Heaven. He brought him out of the tomb, from where they had 
 laid him 
 
 Again, I read in Luke 7: 12-15, "that as Christ was pasing along the 
 street one day, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his moth- 
 er and she was a widow." " He came and touched the bier, and they that 
 bear him stood still. And ho said, yonng man, I say unto thee, arise. — 
 And he that teas dead, sat up and began to speak." He does not say, 
 young man's spirit come out of hades and enter this body. 
 
 I read of Adam, that he lived " nine hundred and thirty years and he 
 died." Peter says, in Acts 2 : 29, " Let me freely speak unto you of the 
 patriarch David that he is both dead and buried." 
 
 We are taught by the Apostle to " seek for immortality" "by pa- 
 
 ient continuance in well doing." Job says, " Man lieth down, and risetb. 
 
44 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 not, till the heaven? be do more; they shall not awake, nor be raised 
 out of their sleep. 
 
 Paul says," I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning 
 them that are asleep." The Bible says, " David fell on sleep and was laid 
 unto his fathers, and saw corruption." "Solomon slept with his fathers, and 
 was buried in the city of David." Not Solomon's body, but Solomon. 
 Thus we find the deaths of some twenty -four kings recorded ; some good, 
 and some of them wicked. The words which are rendered " die," " death" 
 and "dead," occur in the Bible two thousand five hundred aud eighty -two 
 times, but we do not find an intimation in all these, that the man is alive 
 between death and the resurrection. 
 
 WEDNESDAY EVENING. 
 
 Proposition. — "When man dies, his spirit remains in a conscious state, sepa- 
 rate from the body, uniil t\u> resurrection." 
 
 Elder Clayton affirms— Elder Grant denies. 
 
 FIRST SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON. 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies aud Gentlemen : 
 
 Before proceeding with my arguments, I will notice a few things in my 
 opponent's speech of last evening. 
 
 1. He claims that the case of the Rich Man and Lazarus in hades, is 
 a parable ; and he cites as proof, an ancient manuscript of the seventh 
 century. But the criticism of later times has rejected that as spurious. 
 It is not found in the Critical Greek of the New Testament. There were 
 many things foisted into ancient manuscripts, which moderm scholarship 
 and research have shown to be interpolations. The gentleman will not 
 deny this ; for he endeavored to show on Sunday last, that the passage ia 
 
 1 John, 5: 7, generally quoted to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, is an 
 interpolated passage. But he says, again, the case of the Rich Man and 
 Lazarus is a parable, for " without a parable spake he not unto them." Of 
 course, then, all that Jesus ever said is parabolic — the sermon on the Mount ; 
 the discourse which he delivered to his disciples on the occasion of institu- 
 ting the Supper ; the Commission which he gave to them to preach the 
 gospel ; his denunciation of the scribes and pharisees, doctors, and 
 lawyers; all these are parables! This proves rather too much for the 
 gentleman's theory ; and, consequently, does not prove anything. It is- 
 true that on a certain occasion, in a fisher's boat on the sea of Grallilee, 
 he delivered to them a series of parables, and on that occasion, " without 
 a parable spake he not unto them." 
 
 2. He introduces Wakefield's translation of the " spirits in prison;" 
 
 2 Peter, 3 : 18. But Wakefield is against him. It says the spirits are 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD- 45 
 
 now in prison — that is, were in prison "when Peter wrote, and not in the 
 days of Noah. Consequently, the spirit of Christ could not have preached 
 to them in the days of Noah. 
 
 3. He says according to my view of the spirit, what was the use of 
 Elijah taking his " old clog " along with him to heaven ? Does the gen- 
 tleman really believe that Elijah carried his body with him to heaven 
 without being changed. If not, where is the pertinency of such a remark ? 
 I have understood him to teach that Enoch and Elijah were both transla- 
 ted ; and that they are types of what the living saints shall be when they 
 are " changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump." 
 If such is his belief, his witticism about the " old clog " will not help his 
 case; it will only recoil upon himself. 
 
 4. I will now exhibit a few more of the inconsistencies of his parabolic 
 interpretation of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The rich man is the Jewish 
 nation ; Lazarus the Gentile nations. Well, the Gentile nations, then, 
 were carried by angels into Abraham's bosom. Who were these angels ? 
 The gentleman says angels are spirits. Did these spirits carry the Gentile 
 nations into Abraham's bosom ? They must have had a task to perform ! 
 But if, as I claim, it was the disembodied qpirtt of Lazarus, the idea that 
 these celestial spirits came and bore it away to Abraham's bosom, is to my 
 mind a beautiful one. 
 
 5. The gentleman claims that hades means the grave: but he has 
 brought forward no proof to sustain his position. The word occurs eleven 
 times in the New Testament, but not in a single case does it mean the 
 grave. ''The usual term for the depository of dead bodies, is maeema, 
 which occurs forty-nine times. It is from mnao, to remember, and may be 
 translated monument. Taphos is another word for tomb, and is from 
 ihapto, to bury. This word is used soven times in the Christian Scrip- 
 tures. These are the New Testament words for grave, sepulchre, and 
 tomb. We read of a new sepulchre (mameeion) but never of a new hades. 
 Of a sepulchre in a garden, but never of a hadss in a garden. Of a sep- 
 ulchre hewn in stone, but never of a hades hewn in stone. Of Joseph's 
 own new tomb, but never of Joseph's new hades.'' With the Jews in the 
 time of Christ, hades signified a place of departed spirits, as we have 
 already shown. And we contend that Christ and his Apostles used the 
 word in its commonly received acceptation. 
 
 6. My position that the ten tribes returned to their own eountrj, and 
 which I sustained by the testimony of Scripture, seems to be "a new idea" 
 to my opponent. He claims that they will not be restored to Palestine till 
 after the resurrection, and contends that the resurrection of the "dry bones/' 
 in Ezek. 37 ch., represents the literal resurrection of the dead. Let us read 
 a little, and see. " The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out 
 in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley 
 which was full of bones, and caused me to pass by them round about ; 
 and behold, they were very many in the open valley; audio, they were 
 very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live ? And 
 I answered, Lord God, thou knowest. Again he said unto me, Prophesy 
 upon these bones, and say unto them, ye dry bones 4 hear the word of 
 
46 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the Lord. Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones ; Behold I will 
 cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live ; and I will lay sinews 
 upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and 
 put breath in you, and ye shall live ; and ye shall know that I am the 
 Lord. So I prophesied, as I was commanded ; and as I prophesied, there 
 was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to 
 its bone." (The resurrection commenced, then, while the prophet was 
 prophesying, and, hence, cannot be the literal resurrection of the dead.) 
 Now mark what follows : " And when I beheld, lo the sinews and the 
 flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them above : but there was 
 no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, 
 prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God : 
 Come from the four winds, breath, and breathe upon these slain, that 
 they may live. So I prophesied, as I was commanded, and the breath 
 came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceeding 
 great army." (Here the resurrection is completed. And now follows the 
 explanation of it.) " Theu he said unto me, These bones are the whole 
 house of Israel ; behold they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is 
 lost ; we are cut off, for our parts. Therefore prophesy, and say unto 
 them, Thus saith the Lord God : Behold, my people, I will open your 
 graves, and cause you to come out of your graves, and bring you into the 
 land of Israel. And ye shall know that 1 am the Lord when I have 
 opened your graves, my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 
 and put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and shall place you in your 
 own land; then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and 
 performed it, saith the Lord." Now let it be observed that Ezekiel was 
 prophesying at the time of the captivity, when the Israelites were in 
 bondage and spiritual death ; and the vision of the " dry bones " was a 
 significant and striking emblem of their destitute and peeled condition. — 
 The graves are graves of captivity ; and the resurrection a symbolic repre- 
 sentation of the restoration to spiritual life in their own country, where 
 God promises he would bring them, and where he did bring them, as I have 
 shown, under Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 
 7. The gentleman has a great deal to say about " harmonizing the 
 Bible." We must adopt his philosophy of man, and his views of the un- 
 consciousness of the dead, in order to harmonize the Bible with itself. — 
 This has been his chief argument from the commencement of this debate. 
 But let us examine his method of interpretation. He finds certain obscure 
 passages in the Old Testament ; but instead of bringing these forward to 
 the light of the New Testament, he carries the New Testament back to the 
 darkness of the Old; and thus reverses the only legitimate method of 
 interpretation. Every intelligent Bible student knows that the New 
 Testament is a divinely inspired and infallible commentary upon the Old; 
 and it is only in the light of its teachings that we are qualified to under- 
 stand the Old Testament scriptures. Why is it that the Jews are rejected 
 of God and despised of men, and are wandering outcasts in the world to 
 this day? It is because they would not interpret the Old Testament 
 Scriptures nf the light of the New. In rejecting Christ and Christianity, 
 
THE STATE OF TOE BEAD. 47 
 
 they have deprived themselves of all the light which the teachings of 
 Christ and his Apostles have shed upon their own Scriptures ; and hence 
 they are wandering in darkness and error. As the Apostle says," in read- 
 ing Moses, "the vail is upon their heart ;" but when they shall " turn to 
 Christ " and his teachings for light, " the vail shall be taken away." — 
 2 Cor. 3 : 15, 16. It seems to me that my opponent is in the same 
 unfortunate predicament — " in reading Moses " and the old Testament 
 Scriptures as he does, — " the vail is upon his heart " — " nevertheless if he 
 will turn to the Lord," — to Christ and his Apostles for light, "the vail shall 
 be taken away," and he will see the subject differently from what he now 
 sees it. Let the gentleman bring forward his Old Testament scripturss, 
 then, and examine them in the light of the New Testament. 
 
 8. My friend asks, " If the spirit is immortal, as my opponent contends 
 it is, why are we exhorted to seek for immortality ?" I will answer that 
 question. We are to seek for the immortality of the body. Even my 
 opponent will admit that we have not obtained that yet. Very well, then, 
 the immortality of the body is to be sought for in the resurrection of the 
 dead. The wicked, who do not seek for it by patient continuance in well 
 doing, will never obtain it. Their bodies will be raised, it is true, but 
 not in " the likeness of Christ's most glorious body." " He that soweth 
 to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth to the 
 spirit, shall of the spirit reap life everlasting." Gal. 6 : 8. One of the 
 elements of our being — the spirit, the " inner man," the u hidden man of 
 the heart" — is immortal now. Peter applies to it the same term (aph- 
 thartos) which is applied to God in Rom. 1 : 25 and 1 Tim. 1 : 17, and 
 which is translated " incorruptible" and " immortal." The other element 
 of man — the body, the " outer man," the " tabernacle" — is not immortal 
 now; but will be made so in the resurrection of the dead, when kk this 
 mortal (that is, the body) shall put on immortality.*" " It is sown a nat- 
 ural body, it is raised a spiritual bod], 1 ." 1 Cor. 15 : 1-1. It is the design 
 of Christianity to render these two hetrogeneous elements of our being — 
 the body and the spirit — perfectly homogeneous in the resurrection ; not 
 by conforming the spirit to the body, and making matter of it, as my 
 friend does ; but by conforming the body to the spirit, and making a spir- 
 itual body of it. u It is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual 
 body.'" 
 
 9. I will now call your attention to Matt. 10 : 28. " Fear not them 
 which kill the body, but cannot kill the soul," &c. I quoted this passage 
 to prove that the soul or spirit of man lives after the death of the body. 
 But Eld. Grant says the soul here means the eternal life beyond the grave. 
 Sec his tract entitled u The Rich Man and Lazarus." Who ever would 
 have thaught that the soul of man and eternal life beyond the grave were 
 synonymous terms ? Nobody, I presume, but Eld. Grant and his coad- 
 jutors in modern Saduceeism. This is one of the sublime discoveries of 
 his new theology, which he claims so beautifully harmonizes the Bible. — 
 The psuclie, then, and the zoen amnion, are one and the same thing. Let 
 us, therefore, nse them interchangably, or substitute the one for the oth- 
 er, and see what sense it will make. " The eternal life that sinneth it 
 
48 DISCISSION ox 
 
 shall die." ' : My eternal life doth magnify the Lord." " I saw under 
 the altar the eternal lives of them that were beheaded." " And the Lord 
 God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his 
 nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living eternal life." Such, 
 my friends, is the absurdity of the gentleman's position. 
 
 I will now call your attention to another argument in favor of the 
 conscious existence of the spirit after death, based on Luke 20 : 37. 
 " I am the God of Abraham, the God of Iasac, and the God of Ja- 
 cob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for they all 
 live unto him." This is the language which Christ employed to re- 
 fute the " Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, neither angels 
 nor spirits." Their denial of the resurrection was but a consequence 
 af their disbelief of the conscious existence of spirits after death.— 
 They claimed that man had no more an existence after death than he 
 had before his creation. Hence there could be no resurrection, be- 
 cause there was nothing to be raised. This was the foundation of 
 their no-resurrection superstructure ; and hence all Jesus had to do 
 to overthrow their theory w r as to strike out the foundation and let 
 the superstructure fall. This he did by proving from the Pentateuch 
 (authority which they admitted) that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 were still alive ; that though they were dead to men, to the external 
 world, they were alive to God and the world of spirits — they all live 
 vnto him." The argument is purely syllogistic, and may be stated 
 thus : God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. But he is 
 the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore, Abraham, Isaac 
 and Jacob are living. 
 
 Now I claim that the Sadducees were more logical in their reason- 
 ing than my friend, Mr. Grant. They believed, as he does, that when 
 man died he utterly ceased to exist, but they drew a very different 
 conclusion from this hypothesis. They claimed that there could be 
 no resurrection of a non-entity. But my opponent claims there can 
 be. I deny it. I say that if the gentleman's position is correct — that 
 death is an entire extinction of being — then the Sadducees were right 
 in denying the resurrection ; their conclusion w r as more logical than 
 my opponent's. I do not dispute that God can create a new man as 
 he did the first one; but I deny that there can beany resurrection, 
 on the gentleman's hypothesis. If man ceases to exist at death, if he 
 is remanded to blank nothingness from whence he came, if he is no 
 more an entity than he was before he was created, he never can be 
 raised from the dead. If he ever lives again, it will be by virtue of 
 a new creation, and not a resurrection. There must be something to 
 preserve a man's identity between death and the resurrection — some 
 connecting link between the ante-resurrection man and the post-resur- 
 rection man ; and what can that be if it is not the spirit, which pre- 
 serves its conscious existence between death and the resurrection? 
 
 I will occupy the balance of my time in presenting a few other ar- 
 guments in support of my proposition. Rom. 8: 38. "For I am 
 persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 49 
 
 nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor 
 depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate ns from the 
 love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord." Love is a conscious 
 emotion, and implies conscious existance. Consequently, if death 
 puts an end to all consciousness, it separates us from the love of Christ. 
 But the apostle affirms that death cannot do this. Therefore, death 
 does not put an end to our consciousness. If the gentleman's posi- 
 tion be true, then Abel, and Abraham, and David, and Isaiah, Paul, 
 and all the prophets, apostles, and martyrs, have been separated from 
 the love of God for many ages. Death has rendered them uncon- 
 scious, and blotted out their existance until the resurrection. 
 
 fn connection with the passage already cited, I will quote another 
 from Rom. 14: 8. "For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; 
 and whether we die, we die unto the Lord : whether we live or die, 
 therefore, we are Lord's" The idea in this passage is, that death 
 does not dissolve our relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. This, of 
 course, it would do it it reduced us to non-existance. Again, the 
 apostle says, " For this cause I bow my knee to the Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the whole family in heaven and on earth 
 i* named." This shows that we belong to the Lord's people, to the 
 *ame family, that we sustain the same relation to him wherever we 
 may be. l$o outward circumstances can affect that relation. 
 
 It was not the faith of the Apostle Paul that he should he unconscious 
 a iter death. Hear what he says in Phil. 1 : 21/' For me to live is 
 Christ, but to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of 
 my labor; yet what I shall choose I know not. For I am in a strait 
 betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and be with Christ, which is far 
 better. [Time expired.'] 
 
 FIRST SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 In connection with the manuscript of the tenth century, w r e also 
 named one of the seventh century, in which the account of the Rich 
 Man and Lazarus is preceded by the sentence, '■* And he spake also 
 another parable," <fcc. But we shall not dwell upon the parable this 
 evening. We regret exceedingly that we have not time to take it 
 up more fully. But we must bring our discussion on this question 
 to a close this evening. There was a little misrepresentation of the 
 quotation which we gave from Thompson's translation of 1 Peter 3: 
 18-20. We will give it again : " Brought to life by that Spirit with 
 which he went, and to the spirits, which are (now) in prison, made 
 proclamation at the time they were disobedient, when the long-suf- 
 fering of God was waiting once for all in the days of Noe, while the 
 pas a building." Our attention was called to Josephus for proof 
 that hades is a place where spirits are conscious. Josephus does not 
 say one word about spirits in the whole account. He says sovls. 
 •4 
 
50 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Our discussion is in relation to the spirit, and we purpose to show, 
 that spirit and soul are not identical and never used interchangabiy 
 in the Bible. We were referred to Matt. 10 : 28. This is irrelevant, 
 as it is about the soul. We have a translation, a very able one, in 
 which this is rendered " future life." The word here rendered soul is 
 rendered life and lives forty times in the New Testament. Man has. 
 no power over the future fife. My brother made a point on the ex- 
 pression " angels and spirits." We read in the Bible " angel ?ior 
 spirit." We say hades and sheol," meaning the same thing — not 
 two places. Angel [arid spirit are two names for the same class of 
 beings. 
 
 We were then referred to a passage where it is said, " God is not 
 the God of the dead but of the living." It will be remembered that 
 this is a discussion, or talk, with the Sadducees, who denied* that 
 there is any resurrection. The object of the Savior is to prove the 
 opposite, — he says : " as touching the resurrection of the dead ;" — 
 not the conscious state of the spirit. The Sadducees told Christ the 
 circumstance of the woman who had seven husbands and enquired 
 whose wife shall she be " in the resurrection:" He answers : " but 
 as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which 
 was spoken unto you by God, saying I am the God of Abraham, and 
 the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." What is the Savior en- 
 deavoring to prove ? The resureection of the dead. Suppose we 
 admit they are alive all the while, how has he proved a resurrection ?" 
 But if they are really dead, all is plain. Says Paul, " God, who 
 quickeneth the dead, and calieth those things which be not as though 
 they were." When this w T as spoken, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were 
 dead', God is not the God of the dead but of the living." " But as 
 
 touching the resurrection of the dead I am the God of Abraham, 
 
 and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," This is the argument 
 of the Savior. But if they are not dead, they have no need of a res- 
 urrection. " Christ both died, and rose, and revived that he might 
 be Lord both of the dead and the living." God hath given Christ, 
 power to raise the dead. Then somebody is dead, and needs a resur- 
 rection. Christ says : " I am the resurrection and the life ; he that 
 believeth hi me, though he were dead, yet shall he live ;" — not is 
 alive. It is said we overthrow the resurrection with our view. We 
 think our brother overthrows the resurrection with his view. If they 
 are not dead they need no resurrection. 
 
 We are referred to Rom. 8 : 35. u Who shall separate us from the 
 love of Christ," &c. My brother argues that they must be alive if 
 they love. True. The apostle does not say our love, but u the love 
 of Christ." Let me read another passage. Speaking of those who 
 
 are dead, , says Solomon, "their love, is now perished." Christ 
 
 lives, and loves the sleeping saints, and is to bring them up again 
 from the dead. We love friends who are dead. They do not love 
 us. If they do Solomon is wrong. 
 
 My friend refers to Eph. 3 : 15, as proof that the spirit is conscious. 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 51 
 
 There is nothing said about the spirit. The passage reads : a Of 
 whom the whole family in heaven and earth are named/' Enoch and 
 Elijah were translated and did not see death. Another company 
 were raised at the resurrection of Christ. We have yet to learn that 
 they are in heaven without bodies. But my friend says they go to 
 hades and not to heaven. Now he is trying to prove they are in 
 heaven; but last night they were in hade* ! Perhaps he can 
 straighten this, I can't. 
 
 Mr. Chairman : We wish to look "over some points. We have 
 been thinking considerable to-day of the spirit as defined by my 
 friend. He says the body is a house, or tabernacle for it; that it 
 lives in the body, like a man in a house, and at death it goes out. — 
 Let this house correspond with the body of man, and myself in it, 
 represent the spirit. You could not give commandment to my house, 
 or write letters to it ; but to me. So all the teaching of God would 
 be addressed to the spirit if this view is correct. We wish to follow 
 this point a little further, and apply his definition to one of his strong- 
 proof texts, 2 Pet. 1 : 13-15. ''Yea. I think it meet, as long as I 
 am in this tabernacle, to stir you up, by putting you in remembrance; 
 knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our 
 Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. Moreover I will endeavor that 
 ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in re- 
 membrance." Let me illustrate this: Let this case in which I carry 
 my Bible, represent the tabernacle or body. Let this Bible in it re- 
 present the spirit of man. Let us now read these verses : [Here 
 Mr. Grant illustrated his meaning by the book and case conclud- 
 ing and showing that, by his opponent's definition, it was the spirit 
 that died and not the body, and resumed.] My and I mean the same 
 thing. Hence according to his definition the spirit is dead ! Let us 
 give a popular definition of the spirit. It is said to be " spiritual, 
 simple, uncompounded, immaterial, indivisible, indestructible, intang- 
 ible, without exterior or interior surface, is not extended, and can 
 never come into contact with matter." It is u immaterial. " So is 
 nothing! " Uncompounded." So is nothing ! u Indivisible.'' So 
 is nothing! " Indestructible." So is nothing! It is "without ex- 
 terior or interior surface." So is nothing ! ! And this is said to be 
 " the real man." How does such a being praise the Lord ? he can't 
 praise without organs of speech. As soon as we admit that the spirit 
 has them, it is no longer " immaterial," and the whole definition falls 
 to the ground. a No exterior or interior ! /" Just think of such a 
 man or being ! Get an idea of him if you can ! Nothing cannot be 
 extended ; if it could it might be brought in contact with something, 
 and then we might form some idea of it. The popular definition of 
 the Spirit is the best definition of nothing we have ever seen. We 
 admit nothing is "immaterial, uncompounded, indivisible, and with- 
 out exterior or interior parts." Was such a Moses on the mount of 
 transfiguration ? Was such a non-entity carried by the angels into 
 the bosom of another new-entity ? What doe« such a being need of 
 
52 • DISCUSSION ON 
 
 water ? It may do to talk this to those who receive doctrines with- 
 out thinking. 
 
 Me. Clayton. I wish to correct the gentlemen. He is not re- 
 plying to my arguments. I do not endorse these writers. 
 
 Me. Gbent resumed : 
 
 We will now read from Mr. Lee, on the same point. He says the 
 spirit is " without figure, form, color, impenetrability, exterior, divis- 
 ibility, gravitation, attraction or repulsion ! !" He says : " No one 
 will contend that an immaterial, intangible, in dhisible soul can be 
 cut to pieces with saws, knives or axes." " An immaterial, un com- 
 pounded spirit cannot be affected by material fire." " God cannot 
 destroy that which is uncompounded, or divide that which it indivis- 
 ible." Could such a non-entity go and preach to a congregation of 
 non-entities ? 
 
 Let Mr. Drew speak on the subject. He is known as an able de- 
 fender of the doctrine of the immortality of the spirit. He says : 
 M As an immaterial substance has no surface, it is a contradiction to 
 suppose that matter can ever be brought in contact with it. To sup- 
 pose such a contact possible, is to suppose a surface in an immaterial 
 being, which at the same time is excluded by its natural immaterial- 
 ity. Whatever has an exterior must have an interior, aud what has 
 both, must be extended. An immaterial substance has no surface, 
 and that which has no surface can never be brought into contact with 
 that which has ; it therefore follows that the soul must be inaccessi- 
 ble to all violence from matter, and that it cannot perish through its 
 instrument ality." 
 
 Says Dr. T. Spicer in a late work entitled " Spirit Life :" u There 
 is no conceivable connection between matter and thought." " The 
 soul exists wholly independent of the body which it inhabits. 
 although there are certain actions it cannot perform without using the 
 the body to which it belongs. It can neither see, hear, nor speak, 
 without using the body." What a sad state to be in ! How could 
 such a spirit praise the Lord? It is unfortunate to be deaf \ ex- 
 tremely so, to be deaf and dumb ; but to be deaf and dumb and 
 BLIND is next to non-existence ! ! We can say with a full heart, 
 that we are thanhful that we are not compelled to believe such non- 
 sense. 
 
 The crowning point of our brother's argument is to prove that the 
 spirit is conscious in hades. If we prove that it is not conscious 
 there, the whole argument of my opponent falls to the ground. — 
 Hades and sheol are used interchangably. Says Dr. Kitto, in his 
 
 Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, ''A careful examination will 
 
 lead to the conclusion that no sanction to an inter- 
 mediate state is afforded by those passages where hades occurs ; but 
 Uat -.they denote the grave both of the righteous and wicked." 
 
 Dr. Geo. Campbell, the Presbyterian commentator, says : " In my 
 judgment hades should never, in Scripture, be rendered hell. Sheol 
 the corresponding Hebrew word, signifies the state of the dead in 
 general, without regard to goodness." 
 
T1LK ,'TAJT. OV THE DEAD. 53 
 
 Moses Stuart says : — t4 J/adf* means grave, selpulehre, depository of 
 the dead." 
 
 We remarked that the Bible hcSties never meant, when used literal- 
 ly, a place of consciousness. We will read a little from heathen 
 writers, who invented a hodes of ebttgeiousiiess. lt One part of 
 Pluto's diminion is called Elysium, or region of delights. Good 
 souls go into this part, after they are- purged from their light offences 
 in this world. This Elysium has all manner of pleasant things: such 
 as shady groves verdant fields, soft W&zks, and a river called 
 Lethe, which causes nirgetfulness of all former troubles, after drink- 
 ino« its waters/' Otic part \va- assigned to the good, and the other 
 part to the wicked. The Catholics have lived up one part into pur- 
 gatory, and received large sums of money for pretending to pray 
 souls out of this place. 
 
 Let us look at the Bible hades, "And the sea gave up the dead 
 which were in it; and death and hades delivered up the dead which 
 were in them, and they were judged, every man according to their 
 works." Rev. 20: 13. The heathen taught differently from this; 
 hence God intructs the wise man to say, "There is no work, nor de- 
 vice, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in" meol or hades. Luther, when 
 referring to this passage says: u Another proof that the dead are in- 
 sensible. Solomon thinks therefore, that the dead are altogether 
 asleep and think of nothing. They lie, not reckoning days or 
 years, but when awakened, will seem to themselves to have slept 
 scarcely a moment.'' Shall we believe the Bible description of ha- 
 des, or heathen mythology f 
 
 Win. Tyndale, who gave us the first printed edition of the Bible 
 in English, in answer to Thomas More; the Platonist, says : — " And 
 ye in putting them (spirits) m heaven, hell and purgatory, destroy 
 the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection 
 
 If they be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good case as 
 
 the angels be? And then what cause is there of the resurrection?" 
 
 McCullock, iu his able work on the Credibility of the Scriptures," 
 says: — "There is no word in the Hebrew language that signifies 
 either soul or spirit, in the technical sense in which we use the terms, 
 as implying something distinct from the body." 
 
 My friend says, Christ endorsed the doctrine of the Pharisees con- 
 cerning hade*, in the parable of the Rich Man. This parable is found 
 m the Jewish Talmud and was employed by the Savior to illustrate 
 the future history of the Jews. It is singular that Christ should 
 have used a parable to contradict plain Scriptures, which is the case 
 provided this parable applies to the state of the dead. 
 
 My brother says, parables are founded on fact. Is the parable 
 of the trees, in Judges 9 : 8-15, which went to choose a King to rule 
 over them founded on fact ? Is the parable of the eagles, in Ezek. 
 17: 2-8, founded on fact? Yet it is asserted that all parables are 
 founded on facts. One of the doctrines of the Pharisees was a be- 
 lief in the conscious state of the spirit between death and the resur- 
 
54 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 rection. The Sadducees denied this and the resurrection of the 
 
 dead. Both were wrong. Hence Jesus says: "Beware of the 
 
 doctrines of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, one believed the 
 spirit is conscious and the other denied the resurrection. 
 
 Mr. Clayton. I said all Christ's parables. 
 
 Mr. Grant resumed : 
 
 Did Jesus endorse all the teachings of Josephus? a man who 
 rejected Christ ? Let us see what the Bible says about hades. — 
 The Savior endorsed what the Bible teaches. In Gen. 42 : 88, 
 Jacob said : " My son shall not go down with you ; for his brother 
 is dead., and he is left alone ; if mischief befall him by the wa^ r in 
 which ye go, then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow 
 to (sheol) the grave." Does the spirit take gray hairs down to 
 sheol, or the state of the dead ? Take another example : H If 
 these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited af- 
 ter the visitation of all men ; then the Lord hath not sent me. But 
 if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and 
 swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go 
 down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men 
 have provoked the Lord. And it came to pass, as he had made an 
 end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that 
 was under them : And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed 
 them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto 
 Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, 
 went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them : and 
 they perished from among the congregation." Numb. 16 : 30-33. — 
 The word here rendered _/?# is sheol or hades. In this case the earth 
 opened and they went down alive into sheol, with their houses and all 
 their goods! Houses and goods are strange things to put into the 
 hades of Josephus and my brother, with immaterial spirits ! ! Says 
 David, " In death there is no remembrance of thee ; in the grave 
 (sheol) who shall give thee thanks?" Again, he says: "Let the 
 wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in (sheol) the grave."" 
 Are the wicked " silent" in the hades of Josephus and the Pharisees V 
 Again, sheol, " the grave cannot praise thee," says Hezekiah, but 
 " the living, the living, he shall praise thee as I do this day." We 
 read of a company " which are gone down to (sheol) hell, with their 
 weapons of war; and they have laid their swords under their heads." 
 Ezek. 32 : 29. Do immaterial spirits take their swords and Aveapons 
 of war with them '? Let us look at Job's idea of this place. He 
 says : " Are not my days few ? cease, then, and let me alone, that I 
 may take comfort a little, before I go whence I shall not return, even 
 to the land of darkness and the shadow of death ; a land of darkness, 
 as darkness itself and of the shadow of death, without any order, 
 and where the light is as darkness." 
 
 I had rather stay upon the earth, than to go to such a paradise. No 
 " order," — and " where the light is as darkness; as darkness it- 
 self ;" yet we are told this is a very pleasant place to go to, away down 
 under the earth, where Josephus and the Pharisees locate hades ! ! 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 55 
 
 SECOND SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON 
 
 Mr. Resident, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 I have here a standard Greek Lexicon — Robinsons — and I will read his 
 definition of hades. He says : i; In the New Testament, had^s is the 
 abode or world of the dead. According to the notions of the Hebrews, 
 it was a vast subterranean receptacle, where the souls of the dead existed 
 in a separate state until the resurrection of their bodies. The region of 
 the blessed during this interval, or the inferior Paradise, they supposed to 
 be in the upper part of this receptacle; while beneath was the abyss or 
 Gehenna, Tartarus, in which the souls of the wicked were subjected to 
 punishment. " That Tartarus is not an imaginary but real place, is evi- 
 dent from the testimony of Peter, who informs us that " (rod spared not 
 the angels that sinned ; but cast them down to Tartarm" If no such 
 place exists, then Peter did not tell the truth. Here I rest the whole 
 matter. The statement of Ptobinson of the opinion of the Jews respect- 
 ing hades agrees substantially with that of Josephus, already referred to; 
 and I affirm that the Saviour endorsed it by using the word in its com- 
 mon acceptation. But I need say no more on this point at present. 
 
 The gentleman says that in the passage referred to in Luke 20 : 37, the 
 Saviour is proving " the resurrection" and not the consciousness of the 
 dead. I admit he is proving the resurrection; but how does he do it ? — 
 That is the question. I answer, by proving that there was something to 
 be raised. I have already shown that the Saducees based their denial of 
 the resurrection on the l^pothesis r,f the non-existence of spirits. Death 
 with them was an eternal extinction of being. When a man died, accord- 
 ing to their philosophy, he ceased to exist as effectually as though he had 
 never been created. And hence there could be no resurrection, because 
 there was nothing to raise. Jesus proved to them by a quotation from 
 the Pentateuch that their hypothesis of the non-existence of spirits was 
 false; that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though dead to them, were alive 
 to God; and therefore would be raised from the dead. 
 
 I asked my opponent a question in relation to man's identity. He says 
 his identity is his physical organization. It is by that his friends 
 recognize him. I did not, however, ask the question in relation to man's 
 identity note, but in relation to his identity between death and the resur- 
 rection. 
 
 Mr. Clayton, turning to Mr. Grant, asked. What will be your identi- 
 ty then, sir ? 
 
 Mr. Grant replied, I shall bo dead, sir. 
 
 Mr. Clayton continued : Unless he rises from the dead, the moment 
 his body decomposes, there will be a time when he will have no identity. 
 His physical, identity will be lost when his body goes into non-existence, 
 and if any space of time occurs between that and the resurrection, he will 
 have no identity during that time. Hence if he ever exists again, it must 
 be by virtue of a new creation. 
 
 The u tabernacle M is again referred to. I think you must understand 
 the subject after the illustration the gentleman gave. It was very simple. 
 
56 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 But unfortunately lie got Peter out of his body in the middle of his sen- 
 tence. He had him say half the sentence in the body and the other half 
 out of it, in order to prove the death of his spirit. If this is the gentle- 
 man's mode of reasoning, I do not wonder he is in the dark. 
 
 The gentleman goes still to the Old Testament to prove his position. — 
 Why does he not come to the New Testament, and test his theory by the 
 teachings of Christ and his Apostles ? I claim that the Apostles knew 
 more about the subject in debate than the patriarchs and prophets of an- 
 cient times. They spoke of things as they saw them afar off. They had 
 but glimpses of a new order of things to be introduced. But in connec- 
 tion with this new order of things, we have more light on the subject. I. 
 claim that the New Testament is an infallible commentary on the Old, 
 and that it is only in the light of its teachings that we can understand the 
 Old Testament scriptures. 
 
 My opponent says a spirit is a nonentity. And to ridicule my position, 
 he gets a spirit nonentity preaching to a congregation of spirit nonentities 
 in hades. It cannot be that the gentleman believes in spirits at all ; or if 
 he does, they are material spirits, material angels, and a material God. — 
 He affects to ridicule everything that he cannot touch, taste or handle ! 
 This may argue very well for his five senses, but it is a bad index of his 
 faith. I am bound to believe in the existence of things which I cannot 
 test by my outward senses; in God, angels, demons, and disembodied hu- 
 man spirits ; for the Bible assures me that such beings exist ; and I am 
 ready to believe in them upon the authority of God. 
 
 But the gentleman quotes a passage to prove that "the .dead cannot 
 praise God." Who ever believed they could V I claim that death is the 
 absence of life from the body ; that the spirit of life departs and leaves 
 the body dead in the absence of it ; and that at the resurrection it is res- 
 tored to the body again. The resurrection is the resurrection of the 
 body ; and hence it is said in Matt. 27 ; 52, " Many of the hodies of the 
 saints which slept arose, and came out of their graves after his resurrec- 
 tion, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Of course 
 the dead body which goes down to the grave does not praise God — no one 
 will claim that; hence, when my friend proves that the dead do not praise 
 God, he proves nothing contrary to my position. He spent a considerable 
 portion of his time in replying to the theory of Dr. Spicer, that the 
 " spirit cannot hear without physical ears, see without physical eyes, or 
 speak without a physical tongue." But I do not endorse Dr. Spicer. I 
 have contended from the commencement of this discussion that the spirit 
 has sl form corresponding with the outlines of the physical organism; and 
 that it has all the members of the body — the eyes, and arms, and fingers. 
 The rich man in hades wished Abraham to send Lazarus, that he might 
 dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue ; for he was torment- 
 ed in that flame. My friend contends that hades is a state of entire un- 
 consciousness ; consequently the account of the rich man and Lazarus 
 should read in this way : " The rich man died also, and was burried, and 
 in the grave, in a state of unconsciousness, he lifted up his eyes, and saw 
 Abraham afar off in another grave, and unconscious Lazarus in his bo- 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. hi 
 
 som. And the unconscious rich man cried, and said, unconscious father 
 Abraham have mercy on me, ( Laughter, and applause ) and send uncon- 
 scious Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his unconscious finger in wa- 
 ter, and cool my unconscious tongue ; for I am tormented in this state of 
 unconsciousnes. But unconscious Abraham said, unconscious son, remem- 
 ber that thou in thy life-time received thy good things, but Lazarus the 
 evil things; and now, in this state of unconsciousness, he is comforted, 
 but thou art tormented. And, besides all this, between our grave and 
 your grave there is a great gulf fixed ; so that they that would pass from 
 our grave to your grave, cannot ; neither can tbey pass from your grave 
 to ours who would come from thence." 
 
 We come now to the gentleman's oft repeated text, kk The dead hvmo 
 not anything." 1 Eccl. 9 : f>. :> For the living know that they must u;v ; 
 but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a rewaru ; 
 for the memory of them is forgotten/' 
 
 <■' This passage is the gospel of Materialists — the grand fundaments.] 
 proposition which gives vitality to the whole system. " The dead know 
 not anything" is to the Materialist the most momentous declaration in all 
 the book of Clod. It is to him expressive of the most transcendent] y 
 sublime truth that can possibly meet the conceptions of mortal intelli- 
 gence. In the purposes of Materialism, this proposition is the grand ra- 
 diating centre to which all other truths in the great system of God's mora I 
 government are entirely subordinate. It embraces within its precincts 
 the ultima thule of all that is grand and glorious in the system of human 
 Materialism. Hence should the system lose its support from this text, 
 the entire superstructure must at once tumble into ruins. Weil may its 
 advocates be fearful of the result of a faithful and candid examinatiuu 
 of this text. Let us now proceed to a fair and critical examination of 
 the passage. The phrase u the dead know not anything," must be either 
 taken without any qualification whatever, or it must be restricted in its 
 import. For it must be conceded on all hands, that whatever rule of 
 interpretation is applied to one part of a verse, the different clauses of 
 which are intimately and inseparably connected, the same rule must like- 
 wise be applied to the whole verse. Henee. if the declaration " the dead 
 know not anything," be taken without any qualification, so must also the 
 following clause, " neither have they any more a reward." The same rule 
 of interpretation must evidently be applied to both of these sentences. — 
 Thus, then, if Solomon's language in this verse be taken in an unrestricted 
 sense, it must of necessity be understood as denying in positive terms tu 
 resurrection of the dead. The proposition, ki neither have they (the dead) 
 any more a reward," taken without any qualification, is as pointed a de- 
 nial of future retribution as could well be expressed in language. 
 
 " Many other declarations in the sacred Scriptures similar to the one 
 under notice might be cited, which, without any limitation of meaning, 
 most certainly conflict with the doctrine of life and immortality as brought 
 to light in the gospel of Christ, David, in Psalms 88 : 4-5, says : u I 
 am counted as them that go down to the pit, I am as a man that hath no 
 strength ; free among the dead, .like the slain that lie in the grave, whom 
 
58 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 thou rememberest no more ; and they are cut off from thy hand." Again, 
 in Job 7:9. " As the cloud is consumed and vanishcth away, so he that 
 goeth down to the grave Mil come up no more." Now, if this language 
 be taken without qualification, theu, what becomes of the doctrine of the 
 resurrection of the dead ? We must, then, either qualify the language of 
 Solomon, now under consideration, or else, with the ancient Sadducees, 
 frankly deny the resurrection of the dead, and the doctrine of a future 
 retribution. Now, which horn of the dilema will nry friend Mr. Grant, 
 take ? If he is disposed to abandon the doctrine of the resurrection of 
 the dead in order to uphold his theory of unconsciousness, let him say so 
 at once, and deny that there is any future life. But Materialists tell us 
 that the clause, " neither have they any more a reward," is qualified by the 
 context. In this view I heartily concur. "Well, then, let us read the 
 passage in its connection. " For the living know that they must die ; 
 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, are now perished : neither have they any more a portion 
 forever in any thing that is done under the «?/«;" that is, says the Mate- 
 rialist, " the dead have no more a reward forever under the sun." So we 
 say, also, the dead ^ hiow not any thing under the sun;" that is upon the 
 earth ; for, note the fact, that if one of these declarations is qualified by 
 under the sun, the other is also thus qualified. Hence according to this po- 
 tion, which is the only one that can be taken without an express denial 
 of a future life, my opponent will be constrained to renounce all claim to 
 this text, as affording any support to his peculiar views of the dead. — 
 But, the end is not yet. If the declaration " the dead know not any- 
 thing," be interpreted without any reference whatever to " the land of 
 the living " yet it by no means proves that the dead are absolutely desti- 
 tute of all knowledge. For I assert fearlessly that b} 7 the same kind of 
 testimony upon which my opponent relies with so much confidence, I can 
 also demonstrate from the word of God, the unconsciousness of the living. 
 This may be a startling proposition to my opponent ; b«t I hope its dem- 
 onstration may lead him to review his position, and to abandon the per- 
 nicious error which he has. honestly no doubt, but unfortunately em- 
 braced. Let us, then, appeal to the word of God. 2 Sam. 15 : 11. — 
 How readest thou ? " And with Absolom went 200 men out of Jerusa- 
 lem, who were called ; and they went in their simplicity, and they knew 
 not anything.'''' This perhaps may be a new idea to my opponent, but the 
 Bible some how seems to he full of new ideas to him. According to his 
 theory, these 200 men, who went out of Jerusalem at the call of the 
 trumpet, were perfectly unconscious. For it is expressly declared that 
 they know not anything, which, in the vocabulary of my opponent, means 
 the total cessation or extinction of all the powers of intellect — a state 
 of complete unconsciousness. It will be perceived that, the phraseology 
 in this passage is exactly the same as that of my opponent's favorite text. 
 And if the phrase, " know not anything,' 1 means unconsciousness when 
 applied to the dead, it must also, according to the dictates of reason and 
 csotumoH sense, have the same signification when applied to the living. — 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 59 
 
 Again, Paul, in 1 Tim. G : 4, in relation to the individual who rejects 
 the counsel of God, declares, u He is proud knowing nothing.'' Should 
 this language be taken without qualification, and receive such an inter- 
 pretation as accords with iny opponents position, it would demonstrate 
 an entire destitution of knowledge on the part of all who will *not con- 
 vsent to the wholesome teachings of the blessed Savior." 
 
 I sincerely hope that this exposition may not be without its effect on 
 the mind of my opponent in leading him to a careful review of his posi- 
 tion. For certain it is, that if this text does not sustain his position, he 
 has nothing that will in the Bible. The gentleman himself will admit 
 that this is the strongest passage in the Bible which he claims in support 
 of his position. But I have shown that if the phraseology of this pass- 
 age proves the unconsciousness of the dead, the same phraseology in other 
 passages proves the unconsciousness of the living. Hence his theory 
 must fall to the ground. It has no foundation in the word of God. It 
 cannot stand the test of a fair and legitimate interpretation of the Scrip- 
 tures. But let us pass to another argument. 
 
 The gentleman says the Savior told his disciples to beware of the doc- 
 trine of the Pharisees ; and intimates that he had refference to their doctrine 
 of the conscious existence of the spirit after death. But that does not 
 necessarily follow. The Savior had an eminent disciple called Paul, who 
 declared himself to be " a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee."' Acts 
 23 : G. Now, we enquire, what was it that constituted a man a Pharisee 
 — that distinguished him as such from the other sect of the Jews, called 
 the Sadducees ? I answer, it was a doctrinal, and not a personal peculiar- 
 ity. And hence Paul could not have been a Pharisee without holding 
 the doctrines which they held, and which distinguished them from other 
 sects. Now what were these ? I answer. 
 
 1. The resurrection of the dead. 
 
 2. The existence of angels : and, 
 
 8, The existence of disembodied spirits. 
 
 All these items the Sadducees denied. Hence the denial of these doc- 
 trines constituted a man a Sadducee, while the acknowledgement of them 
 constituted a man a Pharisee. Therefore, to have been a Pharisee, Paul 
 must have believed all of these doctrines. To have believed the first, 
 would have made him only one third a Pharisee ; to have believed the 
 first and the second, would have made him only two-thirds a Pharisee ; 
 but to have believed them all, would have made him a whole Pharisee ; 
 and that is just what he said he was — u a Pharisee and the son of a Phar- 
 isee.'' That he did endorse all these doctrines, is most evident from his 
 own teaching on the subject. He taught the first — the resurrection of 
 the dead — in the 15th of 1 Cor.; the second — the existence of angels — in 
 Acts 27: 23, and in Heb. 1 : 5-13; and the third — the conscious exis- 
 tence of the spirit after death — in 2nd Cor. 5 : 1-i), and in Phil. 1 : 23. 
 
 I will now conclude the discussion of this proposition, on my part, by 
 presenting a brief summary of the ground which I have gone over. I 
 have proved, first, that there is an intelligent spirit in man, from the fact 
 that it is the subject of regeneration ; that the power of volition or will- 
 
GO DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ing is predicated of it ; and that it is declared to be intelligent, or to 
 blow the things of man : that it is formed within man, and lias a form 
 corresponding with the outlines of the body which it inhabits ; that it is 
 the " inner man," " the hidden man of the heart," the 4i P which occupies 
 '' the tabernacle" of the body; and that it is incorruptible. I have proved, 
 secondly, that this spirit is separated from the body at death, by such 
 Scriptures as these : " There is no man that hath power over the spirit 
 to retain the spirit." Eccl. 8 ; 8. k - Then shall the dust return to the 
 earth as it was, but the spirit shall return to &od who gave it." Ecel. 
 12 : 7. " Father into thy hands I commend my spirit. And when he 
 had thus said, he gave up the spirit." Luke 28 : 40. And they 
 stoned Stephen calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my 
 spirit." Acts 7 : 59. As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith 
 without works is dead also." James 2 : 20. I have proved that the 
 spirit thus separated from the bod}', is in a conscious state between death 
 and the resurrection, from the case of the thief; the Kich Man and Laz- 
 arus; the spirits in prison ; Moses on the mount: Christ's refutation of 
 the Sadducees; and a variety of other arguments. [Time Expired.\ 
 
 SECOND SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 This evening closes the discussion of this question* It is not ex- 
 pected we will advance new arguments, but simply review the old 
 ones. We w r ere referred to a description of hades which, said, u it 
 is supposed to be" so and so. The Bible does not deal in supposi- 
 tion. It gives a positive definition of hades. My opponent says 
 tartarus is a place, or Peter did not instruct us correctly. We be- 
 lieve it is a place. But where is it ? We will read another extract. 
 Dr. Parkhurst, the Lexicographer, says : " Ft appears from a passage, 
 in Lucian, that by tartarus was meant, in a physical sense, the bounds 
 or verge of this material creation." Abundance of similar testi- 
 mony can be produced. 
 
 My brother says the Savior used the word hades in the common 
 acceptation of the word. So he does in the Bible sense. 
 
 He says that Jesus and his apostles knew more than the prophets: 
 and rather ridiculed us for looking into the Old Testament for proof, 
 Mr. Chairman, w as not the Holy Spirit as intelligent when it taught 
 the prophets, as when it taught the apostles 2 He says I do not be- 
 lieve in the Spirit. I do, Mr. Chairman. J believe in the influence 
 of the Holy Spirit which proceedeth from the Father. 
 
 He thinks that when the Bible says " the dead praise not the 
 Lord," it means the body, which is the house. Did the house ever 
 praise the Lord ? No ! It was the 'man in the house. He quotes 
 Job V : 9, which he thinks entirely overthrows our strong passage, 
 as he is pleased to call it. " He that goeth down to the grave (sheol) 
 shall come up no more." Why does he not let Job explain himself f 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 61 
 
 He says: "So man lieth down and riseth not; till the lieavens be no 
 more, they shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep." 
 
 He says Paul endorsed the doctrines of the Pharisees. Did he 
 endorse what the Savior repudiated? I should not dare to contra- 
 dict the teachings of Christ as plain as that. My friend refers to 
 Paul's desire to depart and be with Christ. The word rendered de- 
 part, occurs in Luke 12: 36, and is rendered return. ' ; And ye 
 yourselves like unto men that wait for their Lord, when he will return 
 from the wedding." Hence some render Phil. 1 : 23, " having a de- 
 sire for the returning and being with Christ." " In twenty-two manu- 
 scripts of the Septuaghit, including the Oxford, this word is used 
 in Josh. 22 : 8, for the Hebrew word which always means to returns 
 , w And he spa.ke unto them, saying return with much riches unto you?" 
 tents." Paid desired to be translated and be with Christ — not to go 
 to hades. 
 
 When speaking before, we had just time to read Job's description 
 
 , of hades. We will look at it once more. " Are not my days few? 
 
 i cease then, and let me alone, that I may take comfort a little^ before. 
 
 ! I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness..! .as 
 
 darkness itself." Job asks the interesting question, "If a man Mi 
 
 *hall he lire again .**" The Savior answers, " I will raise him up at 
 
 the last day." Job did not expect to go to a place like Josephus" 
 
 hades, a paradise in the earth, fitted up by the heathen. In Job's 
 
 harks there is no order, the rich and poor are there, laid side by side. 
 
 The mighty eotiquorer and the poor peasant, the high and low, the 
 
 haughty and the 1 nimble, all lie side by side in silence. 
 
 My friend's great argument through all this discussion, on which 
 all hinges, consists in the endeavor to prove, in opposition to all these 
 1 Scriptures, that the spirit of man goes to a conscious hades at death, 
 to get a partial reward or punishment for deeds done in the body 
 rt where the light is as darkness." and this he calls paradise. How 
 different from the .Bible paradise ! Says the Savior, " To him that 
 overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst 
 of the paradise of God." Rev. 2 : 7. In Rev. 22 : 2, we learn that 
 " the tree of life" is in the new earth, that is in the midst of paradise, 
 ! and then the Thief will be remembered by the Savior. "The tree 
 of life" is not in hades! 
 
 The Bible does not prove both sides of the question, when rightly 
 understood. It is all in favor of unconsciousness between death and 
 the resurrection, or it is all against it. We have shown from the 
 Bible that man, the whole ?nan, was formed "of the dust of the 
 ground." Gen. 2: 7. "The Lord God formed mem of the dust of 
 ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man be- 
 came a living soul, or living being, or living animal, as Kitto says it 
 should be rendered. 
 
 This is the i%al mctoi according to the Bible, the living, accountable be- 
 ing ; and we have no record of having anything eke put into man, but the 
 •• breath of life/' The spirit is never called man. This spirit, or breath, 
 
62 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 is in his " nostrils,"' and we have no proof, Mr. Chairman, to show that 
 anything else leaves him at death, but this a breath of life." It remains 
 to be shown by our opponent, from a single passage, that anything else 
 leaves man at death but this " breath of life." Most of the passages 
 brought by my friend have no relevance whatever to the subject, because 
 they say nothing about the spirit. We are sorry he has not adhered more 
 closely to the question. 
 
 Let us notice again a few examples of the use of the word rendered 
 spirit. "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, 
 to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven ; and 
 everything that is in the earth shall die." — Gen, 6: 17. "And they went 
 in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath 
 of life." — Gen. 7: 15. " The Lord brought an east wind upon the land all 
 that day, and all that night 5 and when it was morning, the east wind 
 brought the locusts." — Ex. 10: 13. " One is so near to another, that no 
 air can come between them." — Job 41; 16. " For that which befalleth 
 the sons of men befalleth beasts ; even one thing befalleth them : as the 
 one dieth, so dieth the other ; yea, they have all one breath." — Eccl. 3: 19. 
 " His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth ; in that very day his 
 thoughts perish." — Ps. 146: 4. " Thou hidest thy face they are troubled ; 
 thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. — Ps. 104: 
 29. The word rendered breath, wind and air, is the same that is rendered 
 spirit in Eccl. 12: 7, where it is said " the spirit shall return unto God 
 who gave it." The corresponding Greek word is found in the following 
 passage : " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou nearest the sound 
 thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth." — John 
 3: 8. Job says, " The spirit of God is in my nostrils." Why does not 
 my friend meet these Scriptures ? Why does he pass them unnoticed ? 
 
 Mr. Chairman, we hold that the brain is the organ of thought ; that 
 when the man's brain ceases to act, he stops thinking. 
 
 In Gen. 3: 19, we read, " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, 
 till thou return unto the ground ; for out of it wast thou taken : for dust 
 theu art, and unto dust shalt thou return." My friend will dodge, I sup- 
 pose, and say that is the body. Does God talk to a man's house, or body ? 
 If my brother's position is correct, the Lord talks to the spirit in the 
 house, and says, *' dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." 
 
 I would ask, is Adam now dead or alive ? Satan addressed him 
 and said, " Ye shall not surely die." God says, " Thou shalt surely 
 die." Mr. Chairman, which told the truth ? It is certain that neith- 
 er the Lord nor Satan spoke to the house, or body. Why was Adam 
 driven from the tree of life ? Let the Bible answer. "Lest he put forth 
 his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for- 
 ever." 
 
 But my friend says the spirit is immortal. We fail to see his proof. 
 
 Adam was driven from "the tree of life" lest he eat and live 
 
 forever." How is man to obtain immortality ? Paul answers, " by 
 patient continuance in well doing." Would the apostle exhort us to 
 seek for immortality, if we have it already ? 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 63 
 
 Says the Savior, " To him that overcometh, will I give to eat of 
 the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God." 
 
 If man does not die, he needs no resurrection. God has certainly 
 promised it, and he would not promise it if it was not needed. Says 
 Paul, " If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at 
 Ephesus, what advantageth me, if the dead rise not ? let us eat 
 and drink; for to-morrow we die." 1 Cor. 15: 32. We have shown 
 by Eccl. 9:10, that there is no knowledge in hades or sheol, be- 
 tween death and the resurrection. T/i Is point has not been met. It 
 has been sneered at, and our friend has turned many strong points 
 which he could meet in no other way, into ridicule. There is no 
 possibility of evading this Scripture. My friend contends that these 
 imaginary etherialities go to God when man dies. He then tells us 
 they go to paradise, which he affirms is in hades, Then it follows 
 that God must be in hades! Mr. Chairman, this is a new idea. It 
 i God is in hades as much as any where, then when the spirit or breath, 
 leaves man it goes to God in the atmosphere, as truly as any where 
 else." 
 
 Must I embrace such an absurdity, as to suppose that spirits go to ha- 
 des when they go to God ? and yet I am taught to pray, " Our Father 
 which art in heaven." Is heaven in hell I ! If these spirits have gone to 
 God, he must be in hades, or they in heaven. My brother says they are 
 not in heaven, but in hades; then it follows that God is in hades, and the 
 Lord's prayer is not correct. There is no chance to dodge this point, and 
 we think it will take " all kinds of twisting and turning" to get out of 
 this dilemma. 
 
 In Psalm 115: 17, we read " The dead praise not the Lord, neither 
 any that go down into silence." No praise in hades ! ! The wicked are 
 declared to be silent there too ! We have brought positive testimony to 
 prove men are dead, and know nothing. Men, angels, Christ and God 
 unite to declare this great truth. Why docs not my friend meet these 
 Scriptures ? Will he attempt to impeach the witnesses ? 
 
 " Then said Jesus plainly Lazarus is dead." But " the dead know not 
 anything." Then Lazarus knew not anything. 
 
 Let us bring the testimony of our heavenly Father on this point. He 
 says to Abraham, " Thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace, thou shaft be 
 burried in a good old age." He addresses the conscious part of Abra- 
 ham, not the house. 
 
 My friend admitted the other evening, that Moses was dead. Let us 
 look at this again. " The Lord said unto Moses, ' Thou must die.' " — 
 Which part did he speak to when he said this? "And the Lord said 
 
 unto Moses, behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers So Moses, the 
 
 servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, according to the 
 word of the Lord; and he burried him." " Now after the death of Mo- 
 ses, the servant of the Lord, it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto 
 Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, Moses my servant is 
 dead." If Moses was actually on the mount of transfiguration, he must 
 have had a resurrection from the dead. Wc read of " a contention be- 
 
 ■i 
 
64 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 fcivfeeii Michael and the Devil about the body of Moses.' 1 — Jude 9. — 
 Would God say Moses was dead, when he was alive ? 
 
 What said Hezekiah when he was about to die? He " wept sore,'' and 
 said: " The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day/ 1 — 
 kSheoI — hades — M the grave cannot praise thee." In answer to his prayer 
 God said, " I will add unto thy days, fifteen years." What ! Add fifteen 
 years to immortality, Sir ! ! We have shown from the Bible, that immor- 
 ality is to be sought after — to he put on. My friend says, the spirit is 
 already immortal, and at death puts off the body. That which puts off, 
 is that which puts on ; but ' : this 'mortal must put on immortality;" hence 
 this Scripture shows that my brother's spirit is mortal. 
 
 The Bible would be complete if everything was left out which relates 
 to the immortality of the spirit, with the exception of what Satan said to 
 Etc. " Ye shall not surely die." The word immortal occurs but once in 
 th'f Bible. Now if the spirit is immortal, why is it not mentioned some- 
 where in the Bible ? Why have the Bible writers overlooked it, if it is 
 true ? Does God reveal truth to the heathen before he does to his chil- 
 dren? 
 
 Herodotus, the oldest historian, whose writings are extant, who wrote 
 between two and three thousand years ago, says : — " The Egyptians were 
 the first who asserted the doctrine that the soul is immortal.'' 1 — Herodo- 
 tus, p. 144. Subsequent to this, the Grecian and Roman philosophers 
 embraced the same doctrine. When the Jews mingled with them, some 
 adopted their philosophy. Finally, Pope Clement the Y decreed that the 
 smil is immortal. In his defence in 1530, Prop. 27th, Luther says : — 
 i: I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, 
 
 such as that the soul is immortal, with all those monstrous opinions to 
 
 he found in the Roman dunghill of decretals." 
 
 When Dr. Barclay was in Palestine, he visited the cave of Pelagius, 
 on Mt. Olivet, where christians secluded themselves in the early persecu- 
 tions. In this cave, he found the following, engraven upon the rock in 
 the old Greek language. " Put thy faith in God, Domitela, no human 
 creature is immortal." 
 
 Paul says, " I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of 
 God.'' but he has not said one word about the immortality of the spirit. 
 Therefore it is not the counsel of God. Again he says " I have kept 
 back nothing that -was profitable". He has kept back everything concern- 
 ing the immortality of the soul or spirit, or consciousness in hades ; there- 
 fore it is not u profitable. h My friend has failed to. bring one " thus saitk 
 the Lord" to prove his position, that the spirit is conscious between death 
 and the resurrection. Hence he has not sustained his proposition by the 
 Biui.E, but by Josephus and heathen mythology. 
 
 Muacky the word rendered spirit occur in the Old Testament four 
 hundred times ; and pneiima, the corressponding Greek w T ord, three 
 hundred and eighty-five times in the New; making seven hundred 
 arid eighty-five in the whole. In all these examples ruach sm& pneu- 
 m.a are not once rendered soid; and yet my opponent has be'en con- 
 fotfliding spirit and soul together through the whole discussion. We 
 
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 65 
 
 do not find one word about the immortality of the spirit in the 
 whole seven hundred and eighty-five passages where these words 
 occur. Must we still believe it ? JVephesh, the word rendered soul 
 in the Old Testament occurs seven hundred and fifty-two times, and 
 is twenty-six times applied to beasts. 
 
 The corresponding word, psukee occcurs in the New' Testament 
 one hundred and five times, making in all, eight hundred and fifty- 
 seven ; and in all these examples, these words are not once rendered 
 spiHt ; still we are told that spirit and soul are synonymous terms, 
 and used interchangably. In all these passages where these 
 words occur, we do not find one word about an immortal soul 
 which fives on in a conscious state, between death and the resurrec- 
 tion. 
 
 Again, we find that the words which arc rendered, die, death, and 
 dead, occur in the Old Testament nineteen hundred and thirty-nine 
 times, and the corresponding words are found in the New Testament 
 six hundred and forty-three times ; and yet in these two thousand five 
 hundred and eighty-two passages, we find no hint that man's spirit, 
 or any part of man, is alive and conscious between death and the 
 resurrection. 
 
 In all the four thousand one hundred and twenty-four passages 
 where the words spirit, soul, die, death, and dead occur, we do not 
 find one teaching that the spirit is immortal, and conscious after 
 death; hence, we repeat, our brother's proposition is not sustained by 
 the Bible. 
 
 Now we see why we need a Savior to raise us from the dead. As 
 Paul says, "If Christ be not raised then they also which are fall- 
 en asleep in Christ are perished," which means " to depart wholly," 
 " to waste away," u to come to nothing." 
 
 Here Mr. Chairman, we submit the resolution ; regretting that we 
 have no more time, but feeling very grateful to the audience for the 
 candid attention they have shown, and the good order they have pre- 
 served. 
 
66 discussion on 
 
 THURSDAY EVENING. 
 
 Proposition. — " The punishment of the wicked will consist in the eternal ex- 
 tinction of their being." 
 
 Elder Grant affirms — Elder Clayton denies. 
 
 OPENING SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 The subject before us this evening is one of solemn and momentous 
 import ; one much treated of in the Bible, and upon which we all wish to 
 be satisfied. 
 
 We would here remark that we have no object in engaging in this dis- 
 cussion, but for the sake of elucidating the truth. God is our witness in 
 this matter ; that we do not engage in it barely for the sake of victory, 
 but for the purpose of leading the people to a correct conclusion in rela- 
 tion to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 Perhaps it will be proper for me to state at this time, that I believe in 
 eternal punishment as strongly, probably, as any man living. I have no 
 doubts on this point. I differ with my opponent only as to the nature of 
 that punishment, or in what it consists. It was remarked last evening, 
 that we dare not come to the Scriptures. We hope our friend will see cause 
 to take that statement back. We do come to the Scriptures ; we have no 
 where else to go for light on the subject before us. The^jmestion is asked 
 in 1 Peter 4 : 17. " What shall the end be of them that obey not the 
 gospel of God ?" In Psalms 145 : 20, we read, " The Lord preserveth 
 all them that love him ; but all the wicked will he destroy" 
 
 The word here rendered destroy, shah-mad, is defined, " to destroy,' 7 
 " to lay waste ;" for example, cities, altars, &c. Lev. 26 : 30, is an exam- 
 ple. " And I will destroy your high places." Does the Lord mean, he 
 will torment their high places ? Of course not. Again in Num. 33 : 52. 
 " Then you shall drive out all inhabitants of the land from before you., 
 and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and 
 quite pluck down all their high places." The same wcrd again. Does he 
 mean he will torment their pictures ? or torment their molten images ? 
 It means simply as the Lexicographers defines it, " to cut off," u to Hot outf 
 persons and nations ; and shall I put a different construction on the word 
 when it is applied to the wicked ? " All the wicked will he destroy" — 
 What does destroy mean there ? Mr. Pick defines this word, " to anni- 
 hilate." This is the only definition he gives of the word shah-mad, here 
 rendered destroy. " All the wicked will he" annihilate. We will give 
 the English definition of the word destroy, as given by Mr. Web- 
 ster. He says it means, " to demolish, to pull down, as to destroy a house ; 
 to ruin ; to annihilate a thing by demolishing or burning ; as to destroy 
 a city ; to bring to naught ; to annihilate ; to devour ; to consume ; in 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 67 
 
 general, to put an end to, — to annihilate a thing, or the form in which it 
 exists.'' 
 
 " All the wicked will he destroy." This is something prospective ; 
 something to come ; not in the past. When he has destroyed all the 
 wicked, then are they all alive in the full vigor of existence, and even 
 more so than when they were dwelling upon this planet ? 
 
 We will take some examples of the use of this word here rendered de- 
 stroy. Amos 9 : 8. " Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the 
 sinful kingdom, ana I will destroy it from off the face of the earth." — 
 Was that kingdom standing in its glory after the Lord had destroyed it ? 
 
 Again in Isa. 13 : 9. "^Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel 
 "both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate : and he shall 
 destroy the sinners thereof out of it." Must we give another definition 
 to destroy, when it is applied to sinners, than when it refers to pictures 
 and other objects ? Psalms 37 : 38. " The transgressors shall be de- 
 stroyed together ; the end of the wieked shall be cut off." My friend said 
 last evening, and he said it before, that we prove our propositions from 
 the Old Testament. We hope he will be willing to take that back before 
 we get through. 
 
 We believe the Old and New Testament harmonize. We believe that 
 the Holy Spirit which taught the prophets, taught them correctly ; and 
 that God knew as well what was truth when he taught them, as when he 
 instructed the apostles. 
 
 Turn to Ps. 92 : 7. When the wicked spring as the grass, and when 
 all the workers of iniquit}- do flourish ; it is that they shall be destroyed 
 forever." Hengstenberg remarks on this verse ; u The annihilation of the 
 wicked comes into notice as the basis of the deliverance of the righteous, 
 which is the proper theme for this Psalm." All these examples are from 
 the same word shah-mad ; which is defined i ' to destroy" and is applied 
 to pictures, cities, altars, &c. " All the wicked ivill he destroy." 
 
 Let us take another word that is employed to represent the punishment 
 of the wicked. Gren. 6 : 7. n And the Lord said, I will destroy man 
 whom I have created from the face of the earth ; both man and beast, 
 and the creeping thing, and the fouls of the air." 
 
 Here we find the word mah-gah, which is defined, " to blot out, erase." 
 When ho destroyed those beasts and fowls and creeping things, did he put 
 them out of existence, so far as possessing life is concerned ? Or are they 
 now enjoying life somewhere else ? The same is predicated of man as of 
 beasts and creeping things. 
 
 The Lord said, "I will destroy both man, and beast, and the creep- 
 ing things, and the fowls of the air." 
 
 In Gen. 7 : 4, it is said, " For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain 
 upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that 
 I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." This means 
 44 blot out, erase." 
 
 In Gen. 7 : 21, we read, u And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, 
 both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that 
 creepeth upon the earth, and every maw" Did those men as truly die as 
 
68 DISCUSSION Off 
 
 tho beast? and creeping things? Says Solomon, " As the one dieth, so 
 
 dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath all are of the dust and 
 
 all turn to dust again. 7 ' The next verse reads, " All in whose nostrils was 
 the breath of life, of ail that was in tho dry land died." Man had the 
 breath of life in him ; all those animals had the breath of life in them, and 
 all died but Noah", and they that were with him in the ark. 
 
 Here we find the meaning of destroy. Gen. 7: 23. "And every liv- 
 ing substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both 
 man, and cattle and the creeping things, and the fowHof the heaven, and 
 they were destroyed from the earth, and Noah only remained alive and 
 they that ivere with him in the ark." 
 
 In Psalms 51: 1, we have the same word "again. "Have mercy upon 
 me, God, according to thy loving kindness; according unto the multitude 
 of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions." 
 
 Here the same word is rendered blot out. Does David mean preserve 
 or torment " my transgressions," In the 9th. verse, he uses the same word 
 and says: " Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities." 
 
 We will examine another word which is used to represent the punish- 
 ment of the wicked. We know of no way to understand this subject, but 
 to examine the words used for this purpose and compare them together. — 
 We will turn to Prov. 13: 13. "Whoso despiseth tho word shall be 
 destroyed." Not is destroyed, but shall be. The w T ord ghdh-val, here 
 render* d destroyed, is defined by Gesenius, simply, " to be destroyed." — 
 Here we would remark, there are thirty-eight words in the Old Testament 
 which are rendered destroy destroyeth, destroyed, and destroying, and elev- 
 en in the New; and not one of them is defined by Lexicographers to signi- 
 fy suffering. These words are applied to man and beasts and inanimate 
 objects, indiscriminately. These words occur in the Old Testament three 
 hundred and twenty-six times, and in the New fifty-three; making in all, 
 three hundred and seventy-nine. Words used so many times cannot be 
 used indefinitely and without a plain positive meaning. In Jer. 17:18, 
 we read, " Let them be confounded that persecute me, but let not mo be 
 confounded : let them be dismayed, but let not me be dismayed : bring 
 upon them the day of evil, and destroy them with double destruction." — 
 Here the word rendered destroy is from the same root as the others, and is 
 defined, " He broke, dashed in pieces, utterly destroyed" Prov. 29: 1. — 
 " He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be des- 
 troyed and that without remedy." This shows there is to be no restora- 
 tion from the final destruction. They are to be destroyed tuithout remedy" 
 
 We will now turn to the New Testament, and consider a few passages ; 
 reserving the full examination, for another time. Matthew 7: 13-14. "En- 
 ter yo in at the straight gato; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, 
 that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Bo- 
 cause strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, 
 and few there be that find it." Here is ono road ending in destruction, 
 and another in life. Observe the contrast. The word rendered destruction 
 is defined " perdition" — " ruin" and " death ;" which is the full description 
 as given by Donnegan in his Lexicon. 
 
 . 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. b\) 
 
 We will now give the definitions of some Hebrew words which are ren- 
 dered destroy. Sap-phah', M to tn&? Mah-s&gh', u to evtripate." Malt- 
 gdh', "to blot out, erase.'"' Mooth, "to cause death.'"' Kdh-tah', M to con- 
 sume, finisk, make an end." T 'zdh-math' ', " to annihilate." These are the 
 words applied to the punishment of the wicked, as given in the Old Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 We will now introduce some from the New. One word is Katargea, 
 defined " to render inactive to cause to cense, to bring to an end, destroy." 
 Diaphihiro, to destroy utterly, to bring to nothing, blot out." Apollumi, 
 " destroy totally, to die." These are the words we shall find applied to 
 the punishment of the wicked, when we come to consider the subject in 
 the New Testament. We will ^ive the English definition a6 given by 
 Webster, and we wish the audience to mark it. He says, " destruction 
 consists in the annihilation of the form of anything ; that form of parts 
 which constitutes it what it is." If this lamp be destroyed, (taking one 
 from the desk) the form of matter which constitutes it a lamp, no longer 
 exists. So when a man is destroyed; the form of matter constituting him 
 a man no longer exists. 
 
 We will now turn to another word employed to represent the punishment 
 of the wicked, which is perish. This is very frequently used. We will no- 
 tice its use in Jeremiah 10: 11. "Thus shall he say unto them, the gods 
 that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall 'perish 
 from the earth and from under these heavens." Does he mean he will 
 torment these wooden and metahc gods? No! They shall perish and no 
 longer exist in that form. The word here rendered perish, ah-vad', is de- 
 fined as follows : " to -perish," u to destroy," " cut off" Job 8 : 1 3. " So 
 are the paths of all that forget God ; and the hypocrite's hope shall perish. 
 Does he mean that his hope shall be tormented, or, that it shall cease to 
 exist? In Job 6: 18, we read, — "The paths of their way are turned 
 aside. They go to nothing, and perish. When a thing goes to nothing, 
 and perishes, is it fctilj in existence? Job 20: 5-8. "The triumphing of 
 the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment Though 
 his excellency mount up to the heavens, and his head reach unto the clouds; 
 Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung; they which have seen him 
 shall say, where is he ? He shall fiy away as a dream, and shall not be found ; 
 yea, shall be chased away as a vision of the night." Psalms 37: 20. "But 
 the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat 
 of Jambs; they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume a.vay." 
 
 Dr. Clark, when commentating upon this passage, says: "This verse 
 
 has given the critics some trouble If we follow the Hebrew, it intimates 
 
 that they shall consume as- the fat of lambs. That is, as the fat is wholly 
 consumed in sacrifices, by the fire on the altar, so shall they consume away 
 in the fire of God's wrath." Smoke is composed of the particles of the 
 burning body. How r can a thing be consumed away and not be consumed 
 at all 1 It is like having an irresistable force eome into contact with an 
 immovable body ; what would le the result? Solve that problem, and 
 then you might explain how a body can be consumed away, and yet not be 
 consumed at all. In 2nd Peter 2: 9-12, we read: "The Lord knoweth 
 
70 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 how to deliver the godly cftit of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto 
 the day of Judgment to be punished. But chiefly them that walk after 
 the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumpt- 
 ous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Where- 
 as angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusa- 
 tion against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts made 
 to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand 
 not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption." This shows that 
 they do not go to judgment when they die. The unjust to be reserved "un- 
 til tho day of judgment to be punished." No intimation can be found in 
 the Bible that they will be punished before that time. But aft^r being- 
 judged, they "shall utterly perish in their own corruption." Kalaph- 
 thiro, the word here rendered perish, is denned " to destroy," " bring to 
 nothing." Mr. Webster defines perish as follows: — " To die, to lose life in 
 
 any manner To die or waste away, to be destroyed, to come to nothing, 
 
 to be entirely extirpated." My opponent says the wicked do not have 
 immortal bodies when they are raised. So we believe; and Peter says: 
 "They shall utterly perish in their own corruption; or "come to noth- 
 ing" as perish is defined. 
 
 We pass to another of the words used to represent the punishment of 
 the wicked. 1 Kings 18: 38. "Then the fire of the Lord fell and con- 
 sumed the burnt sacrifices, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and 
 licked up the water that was in the trench." This took place when Elijah 
 showed to the false prophets of Baal, that he worshipped the true God. Did 
 the fire preserve the altar and the sacrifice? 
 
 The same word occurs in 2 Kings 1 : 10. "And Elijah answered and 
 said to the captain of fifty, if I be a man of God, then let fire come down 
 from Heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire 
 from Heaven, and consumed him and his fifty." The word rendered con- 
 sented and consume in these passages, is kah-ldp', and is defined, " t > be 
 completed, finished, ended, consumed, destroyed." "A full end." The 
 word occurs again in Isa, 1:28. " And the destruction of the transgress- 
 ors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the Lord 
 snail be consumed? We find the word again in Psalms 104: 35. "Let 
 the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. 
 Bless thou the Lord, oh my soul, praise ye the Lord." Does this mean to 
 preserve forever? In Psalms 37: 9-11, we read, " For evil doers shall be 
 cut off; but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. — ■ 
 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt dili- 
 gently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit 
 the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." The 
 same word is here rendered, " shall not be." The wicked are to " be cut 
 off" from the earth. My friend thinks that they will live forever. David 
 says, " yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt dili- 
 gently consider hk place and it shall not be" The word occurs again in 
 Isa. 10: 18. " And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful 
 field, both soul and body." Does consume mean to keep alive ? Kahum. 
 2: 10. "For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they aie 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. i 1 
 
 drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry." The 
 word iih-chiil' ,J±<z\£ rendered devoured, is denned, " to last, devour, to finish, 
 end, cut off, exterminate." " They shall be devoured as stubble fidly dry" 
 Why compare them to such combustible substances if they are to live for- 
 ever. In Ezk. 18: 4, we read, " The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Not 
 it dead. It is already morally dead; — this is the crime, and the penalty is 
 literal death. How can that which is already morally dead, die another 
 moral death I The punishment is death not dying. In Phil. 3: 19, the 
 apostle says, "for many walk, of whom I have told you cften, and now 
 tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 
 whose end is destruction." Peter asks the question, " what shall the end 
 be of them that obey not the gospel of God." Paul here gives us a plain 
 answer. The word rendered destruction — (apolia) — is defined to mean, 
 " perdition, ruin, destruction, death, consumption, state of being destroyed, 
 eternal ruin." Does this mean they are preserved? Their end is destruct- 
 ion — death. 
 
 Says the Revclator in chap. 11:15-18. " The seventh angel sounded ; and 
 were were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are 
 become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ ; and he shall reign 
 forever and ever." " And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, 
 and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou 
 shouldcst give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, 
 and them that fear thy name, small and great ; and shouldest destroy 
 them which destroy the earth." This shows, the dead are not judged 
 when they die. They are not judged before the seventh angel sounds. — 
 Neither are the just rewarded before that time. Diaphthiro, the word 
 rendered destroy in this passage, is denned, " to destroy utterly, bring to 
 nothing, blot out." In a " moral sense, to corrupt." [Liddell and Scott. 
 
 The word is used in both senses in this passage. The Lord does not 
 corrupt them who corrupt the earth, but will destroy them ; blot them out. 
 The translators have put the word " corrupt" in the margin, to show that 
 the second use of the word, is in a moral sense. For this fcooral corruption, 
 the Lord will bring the corruptors "to nothing." 
 
 FIRST SPEECH OF ELD. CLAPTON. 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 I see that my opponent is a little puzzled with the last text cited ; Rev. 
 11 : 18 — " that thou shouldst destroy them that destroy the earth;" and 
 hence he endeavors to make out that the last word " destroy " ought to be 
 rendered " corrupt," so as to have it read, " that thou shouldst destroy 
 them that corrupt the earth." But let it be borne in mind that the words 
 are the same in the original ; and that God threatens to " destroy " the 
 wicked in the same sense in which they " destroy " the earth. Therefore, 
 if they do not blot the earth out of existence, God will not blot them out 
 of existence. 
 
 My friend says he believes in " eternal punishment." Eternal punish- 
 ment of what, I should like to know? — of nonentities ? The eternal 
 
72 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 punishment of nonenties ! What a momentous statement ! — what a sub- 
 lime declaration ! The eternal punishment of beings who are utterly 
 blotted out of existence ! Suppose it takes but ten minutes to reduce 
 them to nonexistence, what becomes of eternal punishment then ? Can 
 that which has no existence be punished eternally ? I claim that the 
 gentleman does not believe in eternal punishment in any legitimate sense 
 of the words ; for, according to his theory, it is impossible to inflict such 
 a punishment. There is nothing left to punish. 
 
 The gentleman asks, " Can beings be destroyed and still live ?" I 
 answer most emphatically, yes — they can be destroyed, and yet be alive. 
 Let it be observed that the original word for " destroy," " perish," " slay," 
 &c.j is apollumi, and that this same word is translated lost in Luke 19: 
 10, where the Saviour says : " The Son of man is come to seek and to 
 save that which was lost. 11 This refers to the whole world; and in the 
 estimation of Grod it was " lost," " perished," " destroyed " (apollumi), but 
 still, he sent His Son to seek and save it. According to my opponent's 
 definition of this word, the Son of man came to seek and save that which 
 was annihilated or blotted out of existence ! Again, in Jno. 17 : 12, 
 Jesus says : u All those whom thou hast given me have I kept ; and none 
 of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be ful- 
 filled." Here the word " lost " is the same word apollumi, and is applied 
 to Judas Iscariot while he is yet living. AgaiD, Luke 15 : 24 — " For 
 this my son was dead, and is alive again ; was lost (apollumi) and is found." 
 Here it is declared that the prodigal son was " lost," " destroyed," " per- 
 ished," while he was yet alive. And in Luke 15 : 6, a man is represented 
 as calling in his friends and neighbors, and saying to them, " Rejoice with 
 me, for I have found my sheep that was lost. 11 If that sheep had been 
 annihilated or blotted out of existence, according to my opponent's defini- 
 tion of the word apollumi, he would hardly have found it on the moun- 
 tains, and brought it home on his shoulders ! 
 
 But my opponent hopes I will take back what I said last night in 
 relation to his mode of interpretation, that he does not come up to the 
 New Testament, and examine his theory in the light of the teachings of 
 Christ and his Apostles. Bat why should I take it back ? It is just as 
 true to-night as it Was last night. I am glad, however, that he shows 
 signs of improvement, as respects the discussion of the present question ; 
 and that he is disposed to come to the New Testament for light on the 
 subject of the punishment of the wicked. There, let me assure him, he 
 will meet me. The authorities which the gentleman read seem to be all 
 on his side of the question : they are all obstructionists ; and of course 
 would be expected to give the same interpretation of the passages refered 
 to that he does. He asks, u did they die ?" I answer, yes ; but not in 
 the sense of being eternally extinguished ; because if they were, they 
 never can be raised from the dead. Let the gentleman take the position 
 that death means the eternal extinction of being, and I will make a Sad- 
 ducee of him. For that which is eternally extinguished can never be 
 restored, can have no resurrection or future life. But the gentleman 
 quotes a passage in which " a double destruction " is spoken of; that is, 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMEKT. 73 
 
 I suppose, God is going to eternally extinguish their beings once, and then 
 restore them and eternally extinguish them again ! If this exposition 
 will be of any advantage to the gentleman, he is welcome to it. He reads 
 a passage about the u destruction ; ' of wooden gods, and asks, " Does that 
 mean that God is going to torment them ?" Who claims that it doe6 ? 
 I am not here to-night, 3Ir. President, to discuss the punishment of 
 "wooden gods:'" but the punishment of the wicked. And now I will 
 make a broad assertion, that all the cases of eternal extinction of being 
 which the gentleman finds on this side of the resurrection of the dead, 
 annihilate forever all possibility of a future life ; and, consequently, all 
 the passages which have been cited to prove the destruction of the wicked 
 before the resurrection, if that destruction means eternal extinction of 
 being, must prove also that there is no resurrection of the dead nor any 
 future life. It is obvious to me, and must be to every intelligent mind in 
 this assembly, that if any are eternally extinguished before the resurrec- 
 tion, there can be no future life for them. They can never again be 
 brought into existence. They have gone into blank nothingness forever. 
 
 The gentleman quotes a passage which says, " in smoke shall they con- 
 sume away j" and says that " smoke is the particles of a burning body/' 
 He seems not to appreciate anything except a lody. Who doubts the 
 fact that a body may burn up and " consume away in smoke V I presume 
 that if you were to take any individual out of this congregation to-night, 
 tie him to a stake in the street, and kindle a fire of faggots around him, 
 his body would burn up and '• consume away in smoke;'' but it by no 
 means follows that his soul will be consumed. I have shown }~ou that 
 man has a soul or spirit which lives after the body is dead ; and which, 
 according to the Apostle Peter, is immortal. The same term (aphthartos) 
 is applied to it that is applied to God in two places in the New Testament. 
 Hence there is something in man that will not " consume apayin smoke," 
 that saws will not tear, nor knives cut; something that will exist forever. 
 We may therefore admit that the body can burn up, but we do not believe 
 that literal fire can consume the soul. 
 
 I am sorry the gentleman has not adhered more closely to the point at 
 issue. He seems not to apprehend that the terms of the proposition limit 
 him entirely to annihilation, or the eternal extinction of being, as the 
 punishment of the wicked. The proposition does not say that the pun- 
 ishment of the wicked will consist in the process of being extinguished, or 
 that it will consist in the conscious suffering preceding extinction, or that it 
 will consist in both conscious suffering and extinction ; but that it will con- 
 sist in the extinction itself. " The punishment of the wicked will consist 
 in the eternal extinction of their being/' Hence the gentleman has noth- 
 ing to do with conscious suffering of any kind, either before annihilation 
 or in the process of being annihilated. It is simply with the fact of 
 annihilation itself that he has to do. The punishment of the wicked, he 
 affirms, will consist in that, and not in conscious suffering either alone or 
 together with annihilation. 
 
 I will now show you that annihilation or extinction of being is no pun- 
 ishment at '-all, except what may be endured in anticipation of it. while 
 the being is yet conscious. 
 
74 r>isocssio]s r o^ r 
 
 1. In extinction the being does not exists— he is a nonentity. While 
 his consciousness remains, you may punish him, but the moment he drops 
 into nonexistence, that moment his punishment ceases ; for there is noth- 
 ing to punish. All the punishment, therefore, there can be in the case is 
 that which preceeds annihilation. Hence annihilation itself can be no 
 punishment. 
 
 2. Extinction of being, instead of being a punishment, would be a 
 relief from it ; a cessation of conscious suffering. Elder Grant himself 
 has taught this. In his tract entitled " The Rich Man and Lazarus," he 
 sa} T s, " We dread to be deaf, much more to be deaf and dumb ; but to be 
 deaf and dumb and blind is so near being dead, that life must be but a bur- 
 den, almost intolerable to be borne, by one who has once enjoyed the full 
 possession of his faculties.' 1 Now when you get a being into such a situa- 
 tion that life becomes to him a burden intolerable to be borne, to blot him 
 out of existence would be a sweet relief. He would hail it as the end of 
 all suffering, instead of the beginning/ of eternal punishment. 
 
 3. Extinction of being cannot be a punishment of loss ; for there is 
 nothing left to be conscious of any loss. All the consciousness of loss 
 there can be, is in anticipation of it, while the being is conscious ; and 
 hence all the punishment of loss is in conscious suffering preceeding 
 annihilation, and not in annihilation itself. The idea that a nonentity 
 can have any consciousness of loss is too absurd to be entertained for 
 a single moment. If there is a being that lives on through eternity, as I 
 contend there is, the consciousness of loss can be a punishment to such a 
 being. He can suffer all the piercing pangs which a sense of his lost and 
 hopeless condition must, evermore inflict. He can contemplate, with the 
 keenest sense of anguish, remorse, and self-condemnation, the joys of 
 eternal life and the bliss of heaven, once attainable and within his reach, 
 but now lost to him forever. The consciousness of loss will be an element 
 in his suffering. But a nonentity can have no consciousness of loss: and, 
 therefore, loss can be no punishment, if the wicked are to be blotted out 
 of existence. 
 
 4. If extinction of being is a punishment, then the righteous suffer it. 
 as well as the wicked ; for the gentleman claims that death is an extinction 
 of being ; and, if that be the case, the being of the righteous is extin- 
 guished as well as that of the wicked. The length of time that the 
 extinction continues can make no difference as to the amount of punish- 
 ment. A nonentity can feel no more by being annihilated eternally than 
 by being annihilated a few hundred years. Hence if the righteous are 
 extinguished at death, according to the theory of my opponent, they 
 suffer just as much punishment as the wicked. 
 
 In discussing this question of the punishment of the wicked, it will be 
 well for us to understand what we are about. We must not confound the 
 Adamic sin with actual transgression. The punishment of the former 
 and that of the latter are two very different matters. What, then, was 
 the penalty pronounced upon the sin of Adam ? I answer, death — natural 
 death — the dissolution of the body and spirit. The sentence ran thus : 
 ' ; In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." "And because 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 75 
 
 thou hast hearkened into the voice of thy wife, and iiast eaten of the tree 
 of which I commanded thee, saying, thou shalt not eat of it ; in the 
 sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the ground ; 
 for out of it thou wast taken : for dust thou art. and unto dust shalt thou 
 return. "' This penalty was inflicted upon Adam as a result of his expul- 
 sion from the garden and the tree of life. The way to the tree of life 
 Was guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword ; lest he should partake of 
 that tree and live forever, even in his sin. Hence he died, and the penal- 
 ty of the law was inflicted upon him as a consequence of his exclusion 
 from the tree of life. His body did not become mortal in consequence 
 of his sin. It was created mortal in the first place. It was made of 
 perishable material. It was made, as the Apostle says, " subject to vaaifcy 
 or decay." Hence, his death was not the result of a change in his nature^ 
 but of a change of state or condition. Being expelled from the garden, 
 and prohibited all access to the tree of life, he had no means of perpet- 
 uating his earthly existanee ; and he died as a consequence, when his 
 physical organism had become worn out with old age. He was excluded 
 from the garden, and passed into a state of death on the day he ate of the 
 interdicted tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 
 
 Now let it be observed that this death was a penalty only in Adam's 
 case; for Adam alone violated the law — was the sinner. If we make it 
 a 'penalty in the case of all his posterity, then the descendants of Adam 
 are punished for his sin. It was a penalty, therefore, only in Adam's 
 case ; but passed upon his posterity as a consequence. We must distin- 
 guish between a penalty and a consequence ; for there is a wide difference 
 between them. Suppose I draw a dagger and stab my opponent to the 
 heart, and he falls dead upon this platform. His family and the congre- 
 gation he ministers to, are depending upon him for support and instruction, 
 and they must suffer the consequences of his death. He is innocent, and 
 yet he suffers death ; they are innocent, and yet they have to suffer all 
 the sad consequences of being deprived of his support and instruction ; 
 and thus a chain of consequences is set in motion that may continue 
 through many generations. It will not do to say that all these innocent 
 persons are punished for my crime. It is not true. The law of the 
 land will punish me for my crime with death ; while all the sad con- 
 sequences of my rash and wicked act will pass upon these innocent persons. 
 So in the case of Adam. The death that was inflicted upon him as a 
 penalty, has passed upon all his posterity as a consequence, by virtue of 
 their connection with him. To illustrate the matter still further, suppose 
 my father to be a man of wealth, influence, and position in society. His 
 children, then, are born to the inheritance of his estate and social position. 
 But if he becomes a bankrupt and disgraces himself by unworthy conduct, 
 we inherit his poverty and disgrace. They came upon us, not as a pun- 
 ishment for his misconduct, but as an inevitable consequence of our 
 connection with him. So, had Adam's posterity been born to him in 
 Paradise, while he was in a state of purity and life, they would have 
 inherited his life and purity. But they were born to him outside of the 
 garden, away from the tree of life, and after the fall ; and consequently 
 
76 discission on 
 
 have inherited his dying condition and his spiritual poverty. Death has 
 passed upon all the race, not as a penalty, but as a consequence. The 
 death of the body is the physical consequence, while spiritual death or 
 depravity is the moral consequence flowing from Adam's sin. 
 
 In the case of the Adamic sin, no provision was ever made for the 
 remission of the penalty. It had to be suffered. The consequences, too, 
 were not averted. They must take their effect. The whole race have 
 become sinners, and death has passed upon all, whether old or young, rich 
 or poor,' white or black, savage or civilized, saint or sinner. Death doeg 
 not come upon us by virtue of any voluntary or involuntary action on our 
 part — it is wholly independent of any thing we have done or can do. 
 And so is also the resurrection from the dead. We go down to the grave 
 as a consequence of Adam's sin, and come up from it as a consequence of 
 Christ's righteousness. " As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all 
 be made alive." The resurrection itself depends on no condition whatever 
 on our part ; but our condition beyond the resurrection and at the judg- 
 ment seat of Christ, depends upon our own conduct and the characters we 
 have formed in this life. We do not therefore stand condemned at the 
 judgment on account of Adam's sin, but on account of our own actual 
 transgressions. It is these that we are to be punished for in the future 
 world, and not for the sin of Adam. Hence the infant that dies beforo 
 reaching the period of accountability, is saved. It has no sin to answer 
 for. It is the type of innocence and purity. The Savior said, " of such 
 is the kingdom of heaven." But those who have passed the period of 
 accountability, who have lived in a state of probation, who have been 
 surrounded by the blessed influences of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and 
 yet have rejected it, and despised its invitations of mercy, will have to 
 suffer eternal punishment. Jesus says : " When the Son of man shall 
 come in his glory and all the holy angels with him ; then shall he sit up- 
 on the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations. 
 And he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his 
 sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand ; but 
 the goats on his left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right 
 hand : Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for 
 you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered, and you 
 gave me meat ; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink ; I was a stranger, 
 and you took me in ; naked, and you clothed me ; I was sick, and you 
 visited me ; I was in prison, and you came unto me. Then shall the 
 righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and 
 fed thee V or thirsty and gave thee drink ; when saw we thee a stranger, 
 and took thee in ? or naked, and clothed thee ? when saw we thee sick, 
 or in prison, and come unto thee ? Then shall the King answer, and say 
 unto them, Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as you have done it unto one 
 of the least of these, my brethren ye have done it unto me. Then shall 
 he say also to them on his left hand : Depart from me, ye cursed, into 
 everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels ; for I was an hung- 
 ered, and you gave me no meat ; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink ; 
 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in ; naked, and you clothed me not; 
 
everlasting punishment. i < 
 
 sick, and in prison, and you visited me not. Then shall they also answer, 
 saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or 
 naked, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee ? Then shall He 
 answer them saying, Verily, I say unto 3 T ou, inasmuch as ye did it not 
 unto- one of the least of these, ye did it not unto me. And these shall 
 go away into everlasting punishment ; but the righteous into life eternal. " 
 Here we have the grand summing up of the world's drama. Here is the 
 judgement seat ; here is Christ seated upon it ; and here are the assem- 
 bled millions of Adam's race gathered around it. The two classes — the 
 righteous and the wicked — are separated from each other, and consigned 
 to their respective destinies : the righteous to, everlasting life, and the 
 wicked to eternal punishment. Xow, Mr. President, I claim that the 
 eternal punishment of the wicked is just as enduring as the eternal life 
 of the rightious ; that the kolas in aionion is just as endless as the zoert 
 aionion. This, sir, is my Gibralter, my Sebastopol; and I challenge my 
 opponent to take it in this discussion. (Time expired.) 
 
 FIRST SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 I am much obliged to the gentleman for helpiug me. His last remarks 
 were admirable. I don't believe I could have done so well myself. I 
 really believe that he is becoming converted — that is, if he believes what 
 he says. 
 
 We did hope that he would notice some of the Scriptures that we have 
 presented. But it seems that he has not deigned to do so, only to turn 
 them into ridicule. We had hoped that he had got through sneering at 
 Scriptures which he cannot meet. We will never ridicule an argument 
 we cannot answer. 
 
 He inquires, " Can a non-entity be punished ?" It is the man, sir, that 
 is to be punished. If we should ask our friend, if he considered it any 
 punishment to be put into non-entity ? we think he would say, I will give 
 ail I have, to continue a conscious being. We claim, sir, that death, is 
 the highest possible punishment that can be inflicted. / 
 
 He tells us that apolhimi means " loss,'' and seems to carry the idea 
 that this is its principal use. But suppose we adopt this definition of tho 
 word ; then we inquire what is lost Y We shall find before we get through 
 with the subject, that man is to lose his life — himself. Let mo give some 
 examples of the use of apollumi. — Lk. 5 : 37. " JNo man putteth new 
 wine into old bottles ; else the new wine will burst the bottles and be 
 spilled, and the bottles shall perish^ The bottles certainly are not tor- 
 mented. We wish simply to show that these words are not used to 
 represent torment. Our object is to illustrate the use of the words, and 
 then show their application to the punishment of the wicked. John 6 : 
 27. " Labor not for the meat which pcrisheth." Lk. 17 : 29. tc But 
 the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone 
 from heaven, and destroyed them all.'' What did he do then, Mr. Chair- 
 
78 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 man ? He sent fire and brimstone to destroy them. What was the effect 
 upon the Sodomites ? The wares of the Dead Sea roll over them. Is 
 the fire following their spirits somewhere now, burning them up, and yet 
 not burning them at all ? Nay, the waves of the Dead Sea now roll 
 over them. 
 
 Lk. 17 : 27. " They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they 
 were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and 
 the flood came, and destroyed them aHJ" Here is apollumi again. We 
 now get the use of the word as applied to the unconverted. We find no 
 lexicographer who defines apollumi as representing suffering. 1 Cor. 1 : 
 19. " For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will 
 bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Does he mean he 
 will torment the wisdom of the wise ? 
 
 " There shall not a hair of your head perish" " Perish " is from the 
 same word. We will give one more example. Matt. 22 : 7. " But 
 when the King heard thereof, he was wroth ; and he sent forth his armies 
 and destroyed those murderers and burned up their city." My friend 
 says the words does not mean torment. The point is settled then accord- 
 iug to his own admission. 
 
 My authority, he says, is all from destructionists. The authorities we 
 have quoted are Gesenius, Parkhurst, Roy, Pick, which are standard 
 Hebrew Lexicographers ; and Greenfield, Donnegan, Liddell and Scott, 
 standard Greek. Are these Destructionists ? We have not introduced a 
 single definition from destructionists. 
 
 Next, he ridicules the idea of " double destruction." That is a Bible 
 expression. Mr. Chairman, the wicked, as we shall find, are to die the 
 " second death, 1 '' or experience a " double destruction." 
 
 My opponent lays down, what he conceives to be, an important proposi- 
 tion. — That " eternal destruction before resurrection, cuts off the idea of 
 life to come." We have not said a word about eternal destruction he/ore 
 the resurrection, but have been showing simply the meaning of the word 
 destroy, — that it does not signify torment. If he will be patient, we shall 
 prove eternal destruction, before we close the discussion. 
 
 My friend says, we can burn the body, but not the spirit. He says he 
 proved last night that man has an immortal spirit. The passage with 
 which he endeavored to prove it, was 1 Pet. 3 : 4. It reads : " But let 
 it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even 
 the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of 
 great price." His point is on the phrase " not corruptible." He claims 
 this should be rendered immortal. Did " the holy women " adorn them- 
 selves with an immortal spirit ? If so, it shows they did not have it 
 before. We know of no immortal spirit with which we can adorn our- 
 selves but the Holy Spirit of God ; which leads to " a meek and quiet 
 spirit," or disposition. We think it will require much " twisting and 
 turning " to prove from this passage, that man has naturally an immortal 
 spirit in him. 
 
 He says he does not believe that God will consume the soul. We 
 quoted a passage which says, " The Lord. . . .. «Ao# consume both soul 
 
EVERLASTING I*LH*8BMENf . 79 
 
 and body" He claims that 4> extinction of being is no punishment." 
 Mr. Chairman, allow us to submit this point to the audience. Is there a 
 man here to-night, who thinks " extinction of being is no punishment," let 
 him rise ; we would like to ask him a few questions. (None arose.) It 
 would have been a hard matter to have convinced John Broicn and his 
 friends, that it was no punishment, when the authorities of Virginia took 
 away his life ? We shall endeavor to show before we get through, that it 
 is the highest possible punishment that can be inflicted. He says death is 
 no punishment, except in anticipation." The law said to John Brourn, 
 " You shall be hung by the neck, until you are dead, dead, dead. 1 '' When 
 did that punishment begin ? Not when in prison ; not when the rope was 
 first put around his neck, for he is then alice. When does the penalty 
 begin ? When he is bead. How long will it continue ? As long as he 
 remains dead. Does the punishment cease when he is dead ? It does not 
 begin until life is extinct. The punishment is not weeping, it is not wailing 
 or gnashing of teeth, but death. If the punishment was imprisonment, it 
 would begin when he was placed in prison ; but if it is death, when does ,, 
 it begin ? When the man is dead and not before. We are prepared, Mr. 
 Chairman, to press this point as far as our opponent may desire. 
 
 He repeats again, " we cannot punish a uon-entity." We have not 
 claimed that we can. It is the entity put into non-entity, that constitutes 
 the punishment. He says it is a mercy to put a miserable being out of 
 existence. That is what we purpose to show; that God destroys the sin- 
 ner in mercy, and at the same time inflicts the highest possible punishment 
 on him. And we hope to vindicate the character of our Heavenly Father 
 from the awful charge of being more cruel and revengeful, than the worst 
 tyrant imaginable. We believe the doctrine of eternal torment has made 
 more infidels than any other doctrine ever advanced by man. The 
 evidence of this is abundant. 
 
 We now come to my brothers third proposition — " Annihilation is not 
 loss." Then taking away life is no loss. We read, " All that a man 
 hath will he give for his ^/<?. ,, He asks the question can a non-entity look 
 np to Heaven ? No sir ! 
 
 In the fourth place, he says, "the righteous suffer just as much as the 
 wicked." Suffering is not the punishment. It is true that the righteous 
 die the jirst death, just as literally as the wicked. In this life they are as 
 liable to have pain as the wicked. 
 
 After these questions, my brother goes on to reason most admirably ; 
 and asks, u Why was this death inflicted upon man." He says : — " I am 
 responsible for my own sin, and because Adam sinned, death passed upon 
 all ;" and, as he truly remarked, " Adam and his posterity became mortal" 
 We thank him for the admission. 
 
 He says it is useless to wander all over the Bible. We have the best 
 authority for so doing. Christ tells me to " Search the Scriptures." We 
 are not talking about the resurrection of the dead, the coming of the 
 Lord, the saints' inheritance, but the punishment of the wicked ; and we 
 wish to know what the whole Bible says upon this subject. We are taught 
 in the Scriptures, that it is " here a little and there a little." If a man 
 
80 DISCUSSION OS* 
 
 was arrainged before us for murder, we should wish to hear all the wit- 
 nesses before we made up a verdict. So in this examination, we would 
 4: search the Scriptures." 
 
 He asks the question, " What was the punishment of the Adamic sin ?" 
 Death, sir ! It is as plain as words can make it. — " Thou shalt surely die" 
 He says the penalty of Adam's sin was on no one but himself. We read 
 in the Bible, " Death passed upon all men." " All have sinned, and come 
 short of the glory of God." Adam was cut off from " the tree of life " 
 and driven from the garden, lest he should " cat and live forever. 1 ' How 
 are we to obtain eternal life now ? By seeking for immortality through 
 Christ, " by patient continuance in well doing. He says there is no 
 promise made for the forgiveness of Adam's sin. We would like the 
 authority for that. We believe Christ died for all. We are not to 
 blame for Adam's sin, but our race became mortal on account of 
 what Adam did. We are restored by the resurrection of the dead ; 
 
 hence as Paul says, "If the dead rise not then they also which 
 
 are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." 
 
 My opponent says, "the sinner will suffer eternal jmnishment for 
 his own sins." This is what we will endeavor to prove. He says he 
 will be punished with everlasting destruction. What is destruction ? 
 Says Webster, " it consists in the annihilation of the form of any- 
 thing ; that form of parts which constitutes it wmat it is." This 
 " everlasting destruction " is after the coming of the Lord. 
 
 We are next refered to the " everlasting tire." We shall come to 
 that by and bye. But we would ask in passing, what would be the 
 effect of everlasting fire upon tilings cast into it ? 
 
 My Bro. next introduces Matt. 25 : 46. "These shall go into ever- 
 lasting punishment." This, we think, is the strongest passage in the 
 whole Bible to prove my opponent's position. We are very glad our 
 friend has come to this text so early. We stated at the commenc- 
 ment of the discussion, that w r e believed in eternal punishment, as 
 strongly as any man living. We think the doctrine is plainly taught 
 in this Scripture. We believe that the punishment of the w r icked 
 will endure as long as the reward of the righteous. This passage is 
 properly rendered, " These shall go away into eternal punishment, 
 but the righteous into life eternal. The word kolasin y here rendered 
 punishment, is from kolazo, and defined by Liddell and Scott, as fol- 
 lows: — '"Strictly, to curtail, dock, prune, to chastise, correct, punish." 
 The word in the text is defined, " a pruning, a checking, punishing, 
 chastisement, correction, punishment. We can find no classic author 
 who defines kolasis as meaning suffering. We are aware that some 
 theologians add this idea to the definition. What is the punishment? 
 What is " the wages of sin ?" Saint Paul answers, " death." What 
 is the Jmeaning of thanatos, here rendered death ? It is defined " ex- 
 tinction of life." Is death a punishment ? Will any one dispute that 
 it is punishment ? Then as death is a punishment, eternal death would 
 be eternal punishment. 
 
 Says President Edwards the younger, " Endless annihilation is an end- 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 81 
 
 less or infinite punishment. It is an endless loss, not only of all the good 
 which the man at present enjoys, but of all that good which he would 
 have enjoyed throughout eternity, in the state of bliss to which he would 
 have been admitted, if he had never sinned." 
 
 Isaac Watts says: " But who can say whether the word death might 
 not be fairly construed to extend to the utter destruction of the life of the 
 soul as well as the body?" Herman Witsius author of "Economy of the 
 Covenants," says: "May it not, in its measure, be reckoned an infinite pun- 
 ishment, should God please to doom man, who was by nature a candidate 
 for eternity, to total annihilation, from whence he shall never be suffered 
 to return to life." 
 
 Says Barnabas, a fellow laborer with Paul — "The way of darkness 
 
 i3 the way of eternal death, with punishment; in which they that walk 
 meet those things that destroy their own souls." Again he says: — "He 
 that chooses the other part, shall be destroyed together with his works." 
 " He (Christ) alone is the way to eternal salvation, and the foundation of 
 
 eternal life All those who do not believe on him shall not live, but suffer 
 
 eternal death." 
 
 Hermas, another of the christian fathers, says : — " Happy are they that 
 do righteousness; they shall not perish forever." They that are subject 
 unto (evil desires) shall die forever." " The wicked, like the trees thou 
 sawest dry, shall as such be found dry and without fruit in that other- 
 world. And like dry wood they shall be burned." " If thou defile the 
 Holy Spirit, thou shalt not live." " This kind of men are ordained unto 
 death." "They shall die fore ver.V We see that the apostolical fath- 
 ers did not teach the doctrine of eternal torment. 
 
 We hold, Mr. Chairman, that eternal death is eternal punishment. It 
 is being eternally cut off from existence. "All the wicked will he de- 
 stroy," but he preserveth them that love him." That form of matter 
 which constitutes them man ceases the exist. 
 
 We can see how God can destroy men in love ; but we cannot see 
 how he can torment them eternally in love. Suppose we were travel- 
 ing in a foreign land, and should discover a number of persons en- 
 gaged in torturing a man ; w r e would come to the conclusion at once, 
 that these tormenters were heathen, for none but such would torment 
 a fellow being. 
 
 Suppose it had been known that Gov. Wise had intended to tor- 
 ment John Brown three or four days before his execution. The 
 whole Union, South as well as the North, would have risen up against 
 it ; and yet my friend would have us believe that God will torment 
 his creatures eternally. We are not surprised, Mr. Chairman, that 
 men have turned infidels, rather than believe such a doctrine as this. 
 We wonder all have not turned infidels. But the Bible declares — 
 u The wages of sin is death." Let my brother prove it is not death, 
 then he has gained his point. 
 
 We have noticed the testimony of the inspired apostle, and we 
 shall endeavor to prove that all the Scriptures harmonize with the 
 position that all the wicked shall be destroyed. 
 6 
 
82 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 We said we can see how God can destroy the wicked in love. Lefc 
 us illustrate. Suppose we have a domestic animal, — a dog for in- 
 stance, which is badly mangled, and yelling in agony. Your neigh- 
 bors come around and say, " why don't you kill him and put him out 
 of misery ?" Finally, in mercy to the dog, you put an end to his 
 suffering. So God destroys the wicked. They come to the judgment 
 as robbers, murderers, thieves, pirates and licentious characters, 
 weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth; unfit for the holy company 
 of Christ, angels and saints ; unfitted for life everlasting. Love and 
 mercy plead for their destruction, that their misery may end. God 
 in his mercy says, " let them die ; let them be as though they had not 
 been." We hold it is a merciful act, and at the same time it is the 
 highest possible punishment. God is under no obligation to give any 
 one a future life ; but has promised it, if we will obey him in this 
 world, and live so that we can enjoy the coming kingdom; otherwise, 
 we must be destroyed, — die "the second death." 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, if the spirit of man is the real man, and is im- 
 mortal; eternal misery follows as a consequence, unless all men are 
 saved. 
 
 SECOND SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 My opponent said in his last speech, that " God will destroy the wicked 
 in mercy :" that is. I suppose, He will relieve them of their misery by 
 blotting them out of existence. I claimed in my last reply that annihi- 
 lation would be a relief rather than a punishment ; and now, it seems, the 
 gentleman has come to help me out with that idea, by affirming that " God 
 is going to destroy the wicked in mercy.'' But if He destroys them in 
 tnercf/, how is He to punish them injustice? Does not my opponent know 
 that God is as just as He is merciful V and that His justice will be vindicat- 
 ed in the eternal punishment of the finally impenitent ? Why, then, should 
 he represent the doctrine of eternal conscious suffering as being deroga- 
 tory to the character of Cod ? This objection, however, is not original 
 with him. I can remember, when quite a lad, of hearing a zealous Uni- 
 versalist preacher, down in Maine, vociferate it with as much vehemence 
 as my opponent has done this evening. It is, therefore, no new objection 
 to the doctrine of endless punishment ; but it is as old as Universalism it- 
 self ; and has been refuted a hundred times. Still, I will endeavor to 
 refute it again this evening. It is a redicnlous caricature of God and the 
 operations of his moral government, to suppose, as this objection evident- 
 ly implies, that he has made a portion of the human race for the purpose 
 of inflicting upon them eternal torment. If such was really the doctrine 
 of the advocates of the eternal conscious suffering of the wicked, it would 
 indeed be derogratory to the character of God. But I know of no man 
 who believes any such thing ; and who would not repel the idea as a gross 
 and shameful misrepresentation. The Bible teaches us that God made 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. S3 
 
 man in his own image, endowed him with the freedom of will, and placed 
 him under law ; that he exercised his free agency in violating that law, 
 and became a sinner. But no sooner had he fallen than God in his infi- 
 nite goodness, began to disclose an arrangement for his recovery. That 
 plan was consummated in the gift of His Son, who divested himself of the 
 glory which he had with the Father before the world was, " took upon him 
 the form of a servant, and being found in fashion as man, he humbled himself 
 and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross." We are 
 informed that " God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten 
 Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlast- 
 ing life.'' " God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were 
 yet enemies, Christ died for us. ! ' The plan of salvation through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ is so ample as to include all. " Whosoever will come 
 may come, and partake of the water of life freely.' 1 Jesus said, '" You 
 ivill not come unto me, that you might have life/' " This is the condem- 
 nation, that light has come into the world, but men choose darkness rather 
 than light, because their deeds are evil." k ' As I live, saith the Lord, I 
 have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, but rather that he would 
 turn from his evil wa\'8 and live." " He is long suffering, not willing 
 that any should perish, but that all should come to a knowledge of the 
 truth." He is willing and ready to save all who will come to him ; He 
 has made ample provision, and held out every inducement ; he has pro- 
 vided a rich feast, and invited all to come ; but if they will not come, if 
 they will reject His offers, spurn His goodness, and trample His mercies un- 
 der their feet, they are solemnly warned that they must accept of the conse- 
 quences of their own folly. If they are not saved, it will be their own 
 fault. Let me say to you, my friends, that if any of you are lost, God 
 will not be to blame for it. He has made ample provision for your sal- 
 vation ; He has given His Son to die for you ; He has given you the 
 blessed gospel of His grace ; you have minds capable of understanding 
 His truth ; hearts to respond to His goodness ; and if you reject His over- 
 tures of mercy, and go down to the chambers of eternal night and de- 
 spair, " where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.*' you will 
 only have yourselves to blame. You cannot look up and impeach the 
 goodness of God. u Your eternal ruin will be but the result of your own 
 course of sin and rebellion against God." " He is long suffering, not. 
 willing that any of you should perish, but that all of you should come to 
 the knowledge of the truth and be saved." 
 
 My friend says " God is not going to punish non-entities, but He is go- 
 ing to punish the wicked by putting them into non-entity." 
 
 Mr. Grant — I deny that I ever said so. 
 
 Mr. Clayton — Well, if he denies it, I will let it pass. 
 
 He spent a considerable share of his time in tiying to show that the 
 Sodomites were utterly destroyed. What is he endeavoring to prove by 
 this ? His proposition is that " the punishment of the wicked will con- 
 sist in the eternal extinction of their being." Does he claim that the be- 
 ings of the Sodomites have been eternally extinguished ? If so, how are 
 they ever to be raised from the dead ? Surely there can be no future 
 life for them, if they have been eternally extinguished f 
 
84 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 The gentleman says lie 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 ivill 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 
 i-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 cim 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 cither of these elements. Here, we will say, is a 
 dead man ; the spirit has taken its departure ; and the body is here be- 
 fore 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 extinguish- 
 ing the spirit, it docs 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 
 fee, it is not an extinction of being. 
 
 My friend said he was glad to hear me admit that Adam and his pos- 
 terity 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 dis- 
 cussion. " Death, he says, is the extinction @f life" Consequently, it is 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 85 
 
 not the extinction of being. There is a difference between the extinction 
 of being and the extinction of life : and consequently, the gentleman can- 
 not hereafter bring up the word " death"' to prove extinction of Icing 
 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, 1 ' " perish," u lost," " east away.'" &c. ; and I affirm that it 
 never means eternal extinction of being. Xo Lexicon has ever so defined 
 it. I challenge the gentleman to the proof of this; or that any. word 
 employed to express the pjuuisbwotit o£" &he wicked is ever defined to 
 mean the external extinction of l.ino-. \!v opponent must prove that 
 the words employed do mean this, before he can claim them as proof of 
 his proposition. I will now read ;i few passages from the Bible to show 
 how the word apol lit/ni, trnxisluied •• destro\","' "perish," "lost," "lose,"* 
 Arc, is employed by the sacred writers. 
 
 G-en. 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 lied Sea to 
 overflow them as they persued after you ; and how the Lord hath destroy- 
 ed 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. 4 : 8. 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 
 tor her people." In this passage the word " destroy" is applied to the 
 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 de- 
 struction. 
 
 Est. 9 : 15. " For the Jews in Shushan gathered themselves together 
 on the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and shiv three hundred men 
 at Shushan ; bnt on the prey the}- laid not their hands." In this verse 
 and the one following the word is translated ' 4 slew." Will my opponent 
 claim that this means eternal extinction of being 2 
 
 Job 5 : 21-22. " Thou shall be hid from the scourge of the tongue j 
 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 destroy eth the 
 perfect and the wicked." Eccl. 7: 15. " All things have I seen in the da}-s 
 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 
 
St) DISCUSSION OS 
 
 tact 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 
 prolongeih 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 apol- 
 lumi is rendered " lost" and David applies it to himself while he is yet 
 living. Tt 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 " per- 
 isheth" is defined by the phrase " taken away," which is used interehang- 
 ably 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 " per- 
 ish" 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, ft 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 trans- 
 lated 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 moun- 
 tains," just as sheep are when they are lost. Hence it cannot mean ex- 
 tinction 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.' 1 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 'Most" 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-entities. 
 
 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 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 87 
 
 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 lie answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost 
 sheep of the house of Israel." In these passages W3 havo the word apollumi 
 translated " lost," and it applies to the Jews who were then living in Pales- 
 tine; 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 wo 
 shall find the use of these words to-morrow evening when we come into the 
 New Testament, as well as the Old. 
 
 Wo 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 proaching. The Universa lists 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 mado 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 doy 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 
 yo die \" " I have no picas.ire 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 veiy best he can do. They are miserable while they live. The society 
 of the righteous is a burden to them. They have " no peace.' 1 There is 
 nothing in them lovely, or good; and, Mr. Chairman, we hold it is a merci- 
 ful 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- its 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- 
 
&8 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ful not to take his life; but torment him all he can bear without taking it."' 
 Who would accept such a definition of death. What is death ? Web- 
 ster 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-entit}^ 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 9 : "By patient continuence in well do- 
 ing." 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 opin- 
 ion that is the spirit; as the hodij is onl) 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." u Destroy both soul and body." 
 What does he say to these pasbages? He says we give a ditinition of death. 
 No sir, the Lexicographers give the definition. That is like people saying 
 u Mr. Grant says so," when he only quotes Scripture. 
 
 He sa, 7 s, " Apollumi means loss. True. When a thing is " totally de- 
 stroyed," where is it ? When a man is u 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 briny 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 in- 
 discribable agony." Quite a contrast between him and Paul. Says Henry, 
 in his Commentary, " By the damnation of the wicked, the justice of God 
 will be eternally satisfy^, 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 
 
.EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 89 
 
 Auction is olethros, and is defined, u Rain — destruction — death — the 
 loss of life." Punished with everlasting, or eternal loss of life." Christ 
 was manifested, " that whosoever believed on him should not perish, but 
 have everlasting- life." Again he says : " Ye will not come to me that yc 
 might have life." My friend thinks the wicked will live forever, as truly 
 as the righteous. But remember, u The wages of sin is death, but the gift 
 of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ." Thank the Lord for the gift. 
 If we will live so in this life that we can enjoy the life to come, then we 
 are to have eternal life; if not, we must be punished with eternal loss of life 
 — with eternal destruction. Would not this be eternal punishment? The 
 righteous rejoice forever in the kingdom in the possession of eternal life 
 and the wicked are put back to dust again. God is under no obligations 
 to give eternal life to "any of his creatures; but has promised it as a gift, 
 on condition that we will obey him in this life, and live so that we can en- 
 joy the world to come. 
 
 THIRD SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON. 
 
 Mr. rr<Md<nt, Ladies and Gentleman: 
 
 My friend Mr. Grant has referred to the Lexicons for a definition of a.pol-r 
 lumi, and you have heard the definition which he has given. But I have 
 here Robinson's Lexicon of the New Testament — a standerd work; and I 
 will read you his definition. Apollumi. — '' Active form: 1. to destroy, to 
 cause to perish; 2. to lose, to be deprived of. Middle and passive forms: 
 1. to be destroyed, to perish; 2. to be lost" Here we have the primary 
 and secondary definitions. The primary is " destroy," " perish," and is the 
 strongest that can be brought on the subject. The secondary is " lose," 
 41 lost," ** deprived of," and is so translated some thirty times in the Xew 
 Testament. The fallacy of my opponent's argument is, that he takes for 
 granted that the words " destroy," " perish," &c, mean extinction of being 
 — to blot out of existence — to annihilate. But when he uses them in this 
 sense, he employs them in a manner wholly unauthorised by Lexicogra- 
 phers. I wish this point to be distinctly remembered by the audience. 
 
 I will now call attention to Mark 9 : 43. " And if thy hand offend thee, 
 cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life mained, than having two 
 hands to go into hell, (gehenna) into the fire that never shall be quenched; 
 where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot 
 offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life halt, than having 
 two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched ; — 
 where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye 
 offend the pluck it out; it is better for thee to enter into the Kingdom of 
 God having but one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell-fire; — 
 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." The fire in this 
 passage is called the gehenna or hell-fire — u the fire that never shall be 
 quenched ;" and Jesus in pronouncing sentence upon the wicked in the day 
 of judgment, as recorded in Matt. 25: 41, says: "Depart from me, ye curs- 
 ed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." This gc~ 
 
90 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 henna fire, then, or the " fire that never shall be quenched," is the " ever- 
 lasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," and is defined in the fi- 
 nal summing up of the judgment, to mean " everlasting punishment." — 
 And these (the wicked) shall go away into everlasting punishment; but 
 the righteous into life eternal." The fire, therefore, is everlasting, and the 
 punishment also is everlasting. 
 
 But my opponent says the wicked will be put into this fire and burnt up 
 — extinguished eternally. Suppose it takes but ten minuites to annihilate 
 them, then, of course, they will have but ten minuites punishment; or if it 
 takes ten years, they will have but ten years punishment: or if it takes a 
 thousand years, they will have but a thousand years punishment; and all 
 this previous to annihilation, which does not enter into my opponent's pun- 
 ishment at all ! But if the fire is eternal, and the wicked sutler it eternally, 
 they will have eternal punishment. There can be no eternal punishment 
 on any other hypothesis. And it is nonsence to talk of it. 
 
 My opponent cannot escape by claiming the conscious suffering preceding 
 annihilation, for that does not enter into his proposition. 
 
 Besides, be has already acknowledged that the punishment does not be- 
 gin till the sinner is dead — extinguished ; consequently, if it should take a 
 thousand years to annihilate the wicked, he cannot claim that as any part 
 of their punishment; for the punishment does not begin till the sinner is 
 blotted out of existence. Upon this hypothesis, not only is eternal punish- 
 ment impossible, but there can be no punishment at all. The punishment 
 of the wicked does not begin till they are dead ; and when they are dead 
 they are annihilated; therefore they can have no punishment. This is an 
 argument that will defy my opponent's sophistry to controvert. 
 
 The gentleman i informed us in his discourse on Sunday last, that the ge~ 
 henna fire in which the wicked are to be consumed is the inteiior fire of the 
 Earth ; that the interior of the antedeluvian earth was water, but the inte- 
 rior of the postdeluvian earth is fire; and that this fire will burst out, set 
 the oxygen of the atmosphere on fire, and burn up the wicked. At the 
 same time the water will be decomposed, the hydrogen rising into the up- 
 per regions, when an electrical spark passing through it will cause it to ex- 
 plode with a tremendous crash; and this is the -" great noise" with which 
 the earth is to u pass away." According to my opponent, then, the hell- fire 
 spoken of in Scripture, and with which the wicked are threatened, is now in 
 part, at least, in the interior of the earth, and is going to burst mit and con- 
 sume them when the world comes to an end ! This is a sublime theory of 
 future punishment ! 
 
 The wicked are threatened with eternal fire. But why should they be 
 on the theory of my opponent? What need they care for a fire that will 
 burn eternally after they have gone into non-existence ? I should be as 
 much alarmed by a fire of ton minutes duration, provided it was sufficient 
 to extinguish my being, as I should be by a fire of eternal duration. It is 
 nonsense, therefore, to threaten the wicked with eternal fire, if they are 
 going to be blotted out of existence in a few moments. 
 
 But the gentleman claims that it is derogatory to the character of God; 
 and that it will interfere with the happiness of the samts in Heaven to 
 
EVEKLASTING PUNISHMENT. 91 
 
 kuow that the wicked are undergoing eternal torment in hell. But why 
 does not the suffering of this world interfere with his happiness? He pas- 
 ses through the world, surrounded by the poor, and the maimed, and the. 
 halt, and the blind, and all forms of human suffering and wretchedness, 
 without appearing to enjoy himself any the less. And if suffering does 
 not interfere with his happiness here, why should he suppose it will here- 
 after? Are the angels in heaven unhappy because the fallen angels, once 
 their companions, are cast down to hell, and reserved in chains under dark- 
 ness to the judgment of the Great Day? Let us see with what emotions 
 the inhabtants of Heaven contemplate the just punishment of God upon 
 His enemies. Rev. 10: 5. "And I heard the angles of the waters say, 
 Thou art righteous, Lord, who wast, and art, and shalt be, because 
 thou hast judged thus. For they have shed the blood of saints and proph- 
 ets; aad thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. And 
 1 heard another angel out of the altar say; Even so, Lord God Almighty, 
 true and righteous are thy judgments." Again, Rev. 19:1-6. "After 
 these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alle- 
 luia, Salvation, and glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord our God ; 
 for true and righteous are His judgments; for He hath judged the great 
 whore whicli did corrupt the earth with hor fornication, and avenged the 
 blood of his servants at hor hand. And again they said, Alleluia. And 
 her smoke rose up forever and ever. And the four and twenty elders, 
 and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God who sat on the throne, 
 saying, Amen ; Alleluia. And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise 
 our God all ye His servants, and ye that fear Him, both small and great. — 
 And I heard as it wore the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of 
 many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia; for 
 the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give 
 honor to Him ; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath 
 made herself ready.' This shows us the feeling of the heavenly host when 
 the enimies of Gad and man are punished. All Heaven seems to be in ex- 
 tacies *hen they received from the just judgment of God their merited 
 retribution. Does my opponent claim to be more kind-hearted and benev- 
 olent then they ? Out upon such mawkish sentimentality ! 
 
 Those who are oonsigned to eternal punishment, will acknowledge the 
 sentence just. They will be to all eternity before the principalities and 
 powers of the universe a monument of God's retributive justice. We have 
 monuments of his just judgments all along the path of time. Look back on 
 Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities of the plain, who are suffering the 
 vengeance of eternal fire; look at the Egyptians and the old world; look at 
 the overthrow of Jerusalem ! All these are monuments of God's retributive 
 justico erected along tho path of ages, on which are inscribed solemn warn- 
 ings. And I believe the lost in hell will be a monument of the just judg- 
 ment of God through eternity, which will have its effect on the universe of 
 beings in detoring them from disobedience to God. They will behold in 
 hell the terrible consequences of sin against God. The eternal conscious 
 misery of the wicked will neither militate against the goodness of God nor 
 interfere with the happiness of his saints. But when we get to Heaven, our 
 
92 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 capacity for enjoyment will not only be enlarged, but. wo shall have more 
 comprehensive views of God's moral government. His mercy and His jus- 
 tice, and all the attributes of His character will then appear to us in a clear- 
 er light than they do now. 
 
 In Rom. 2 : 8, 9, the apostle defines the elements of the punishment of 
 the wicked. Let us read the passage; "But- unto them who are conten- 
 tious and do not obey the truth; but obey unrighteousness ; indignation 
 and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth 
 evil ; of the Jew first and also of the Gentiles. When will this be ? ** In 
 the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according 
 to my gospel." " Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish," are all 
 elements of conscious sufterring, and are incompatible with annihilation. 
 [Time expired^] 
 
 FRIDAY EVENING. 
 
 Proposition. — "The punishment of the wicked will consist in the eternal ex- 
 tinction of their being-." 
 
 Elder Grant affirms— Elder Clayton denies. 
 
 FIRST SPEECH OF ELD. GRA1S T T. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 We will proceed directly to the examination of this solemn and 
 interesting subject, by noticing a few points made by our brother, in 
 the latter part of last evening. In his closing remarks he charges 
 us with fallacy and sophistry, and says, it is fallacious to say that 
 apollumi means to destroy, or perish. We will give the primary 
 definition. 
 
 Mr. Clayton. I did not say so. 
 
 Me. Grant continued : The first definition given by Donnegau, 
 is u to destroy totally," and the first given by the Analytical Greek 
 Lexicon, is " to destroy utterly." 
 
 We pass this to notice a few assertions of our friend. He says 
 apollimii never means extinction of life. We read, " Whosoever 
 Avill save his life shall lose it" — Matt. 16 : 25. The word here render- 
 ed lose is apollumi, and it is several times thus used. Then it is 
 proper to s^yly apollumi to life? What does it mean when thus 
 used ? u To destroy it utterly and totally." If it never means ex- 
 tinction of life, what does it mean, then, in this and kindred passa- 
 ges ? Again it was remarked, that loss can be no punishment unless 
 the loser is conscious of the loss. This seems plausible on the lace 
 of it. According to our brother's position, when the soul is lost the 
 body is the loser. " What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole 
 world and lose his own soul ?" With my brother's view, is the body 
 
EYEKLA.VriNG PUXtSHMENT. VO 
 
 conscious of its loss after the soul is gone *? Certainly not. Then 
 it would be no loss, according- to ray opponent's proposition. Soul 
 in this passage means simply Ufa, as L>r. Clark shows in his comment 
 on this text. 
 
 He remarks again. " I have proved that man has an immortal 
 spirit." We will look at the only passage which he claims as proof. 
 1 Pet. 3 : 4. We think our brother read it thus : " Let it be the 
 hidden man of the heart, which is not corruptible ;" omitting " in 
 that," carrying the idea that every man has an immortal, incorrupti- 
 ble spirit. But the adorning is u in that Avhich is not corruptible ;" 
 not with something which every one possesses naturally. The Greek 
 preposition en, here rendered " ?'??," whan it denotes cause, manner 
 or instrument, as in this case, is more properly rendered by the 
 words " with," k ' by means of," " by." Is the ornament from some 
 other one's spirit ? Let us see if this is not made plain. " For after 
 this manner in old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, 
 adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands." 
 Peter makes this plainer in 1 Pet. 1 : 22-23. " Seeing ye have purified 
 your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned 
 love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart 
 fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incor- 
 ruptible." The Holy Spirit is here brought to view, with its fruits. 
 It is employed in raising the dead and rendering them incorruptible. 
 We cannot be adorned with a meek and quiet spirit or disposition, 
 in the true sense, without the aid of the Holy Spirit ; for it is this 
 Spirit which helps us to live differently. We are to be adorned by 
 means of this. If Ave have it naturally, why are we exhorted to 
 adorn ourselves with it V My friend says this is the incorruptible spirit 
 of man ; yet we read in 2 Cor. 7:1. " Having therefore these 
 promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness 
 of the flesh and spirit." Hence it appears that man's spirit is cor- 
 ruptible after all, and therefore not immortal ; as man may " utterly 
 perish in his own corruption." 
 
 My brother remarked again that extinction of life is no punish- 
 ment. Why then is it called capital punishment, when Ave take the 
 life of a man ? 
 
 He thinks Ave may be happy in seeing the torments of others. — 
 We think differently. 
 
 We are cited to Pro v. 14; 11. " And the smoke of their torment 
 ascendeth up for ever and ever : and they have no rest day nor 
 night, who Avorship the beast and his image, and AvhosoeA'er reeeiv- 
 eth the mark of his name." This passage demands an examination, 
 although it is in the book of ReA'elation, among high Avrought sym- 
 bols and figurative language. We will commence at the ninth verse. 
 11 And the third angel folio Aved them, saying with a loud voice, If 
 any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in 
 his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the Avrath of 
 God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indig- 
 
94 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 nation," <fcc. Here we find the symbols of a beast, an image, a 
 mark, cup, and wine. In order to make this bear on this subject it 
 must be proved that it refers to future punishment. " The smoke of 
 their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.' 7 We will look at 
 this text first with the idea that it does refer to future punishment. 
 We remarked that smoke is composed of particles of a burning 
 body ; and the very fact that smoke ascends, proves that something 
 is consuming away, and of course, that the object must be burned 
 up in process of time unless the fire is quenched. Hence says David, 
 " the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs ; they shall 
 consume ; into smoke shall they consume away." This smoke is 
 never to be collected again ; if it could be, we might have them 
 restored. It is never re-organized ; then it follows, even taking the 
 ground, that Rev. 14: 11 refers to future punishment, that it is in 
 harmony with what David wrote, when he says, " they shall con- 
 sume ; into smoke shall they consume away." " ft ascendeth for ever 
 and ever." Does this expression show it is to be eternal ? Aion, 
 from which this word is derived, signifies, " a space or period of 
 time, a life-time, life ; also, one's time of life, age, young in age, for 
 one's life-long, an age, generation ; also, one's lot in life, a long space 
 of time, eternity, forever, an era, age, period of a dispensation, tins 
 present life, this world." This is the definition of aion, as given by 
 Liddell and Scott; and we here remark that forever and everlasting 
 are used in the Bible some two hundred times in a limited sense. — 
 We find an example hi Exodus 12: 17. "And ye shall observe the 
 feast of unleaven bread ; for in this selfsame day have I brought 
 your armies out of the land of Egypt : therefore shall ye observe 
 this day in your generations by an ordinance forever.' 1 - Forever 
 does not mean eternally in this passage. Again in 1 Sam. 1 : 22 ; 
 where Hannah took Samuel up to be a priest, that he might " appear 
 before the Lord and there abide forever." In 1 Chron. 28 : 4, Da- 
 vid says : u Howbeit the Lord God of Israel chose me before aU 
 the house of my Father, to be king over Israel forever." This for- 
 ever ran out with David's life. lie is not king now. Jonah says, 
 when in the w T hale's belly, " I went down to the bottoms of the 
 mountains ; the earth with her bars was about me forever." That 
 forever was only three days and three nights long ! ! Forever signi- 
 fies the longest possible duration of that to which it is applied. In 
 Ezek. 37 : 25, we read. " And they shall dwell in the land that I 
 have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt ; 
 and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their 
 children's children forever." This is after their return, and as my 
 brother endeavored to show that they have returned, they must 
 have remained there forever \ but unfortunately for my brother's 
 theory, they are now scattered; then it also follows that this forever 
 has run out. Again in Exodus 21:6, we read. " Then his master 
 shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, 
 or unto the doorpost ; and his master shall bore his ear through with 
 
EYKllLABTIKG rCN'ISIIMENT. 95 
 
 an awl ; and he shall serve him forever." These passages show that 
 forever does not always mean eternally. 
 
 We will now read Greenfield's definition of this word. u Dura- 
 tion, finite or infinite; unlimited duration, eternity; a period of du- 
 ration, past or future ; age, life-time." This shows that it does not 
 necessarily mean eternal. We must be governed therefore, by the 
 coritext, in determining its meaning. 
 
 The smoke ascendeth forever and ever, " and they have no rest. 
 day nor night." Day and night limit this forever. Will day and 
 night continue eternally, as it is now ? Job says, M He has compassed the 
 waters with bounds until the day and night come to an end." Job 26: 10. 
 It follows that this- forever^ and these torments will end. The waters 
 have heen compassed with bounds, since the Hood. But when we come to the 
 new creation there is '* no more sea" — there will be no more day nor 
 night, for the prophet says, " The light of the moon shall be as the light of 
 the sun, and the light of the sun shall he sevenfold." And besides this, 
 ;i the glory of God will fill the earth." The torment of the devil will end 
 too with day and night. 
 
 But let us read on a little further, and see what is in the next verse, 
 (12). " Here is the patience of the saints." Do they need patience after 
 they go to their reward? This must refer to this life. "We believe there 
 is a symbolical punishment on a symbolical power, located at Rome, which 
 will transpire before the judgment, and the reward of the saints, as will 
 be seen more fully by what follows. After all this the angels reap the har- 
 vest of the earth. This shows conclusively that what we have considered 
 is not the final punishment of the wicked. " Another angel came out of 
 the temple crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, thrust 
 in thy sickle and reap ; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that 
 sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth ; and the earth was 
 reaped. And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, 
 he also having a sharp sickle," &e. Now comes their punishment. — 
 " And I saw another night in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels 
 having the seven last plagues ; for in them is filled up with the wrath of 
 God." Are the angels eternally employed in pouring out these vials of 
 wrath ? At this point the saints sing the song of Moses, the servant of 
 God, and the song of the Lamb."' They have then got beyond the point 
 where they need "patience™ We read, " NO man was able to enter 
 into the temple till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fullfilled." 
 If they are to be eternally fullfilling, then no man can ever enter into 
 the temple. Let us see where these vials were poured out. We have 
 remarked before that the wicked are to be punished on the earth ; for we 
 find it thus positvely stated in the Scriptures. M I heard a great voice out 
 of the temple saying to the seven angels, go your ways, and pour out the 
 vials of the wrath of God upon the earth. And the first went and 
 poured out his vial upon the earth." The effect of all is upon the earth. 
 After the wicked are destroyed and l> rooted out" of the earth, then the 
 saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom 
 forever, even forever and ever." When the saints take the kingdom and 
 
96 Discrssiox on 
 
 dominion " under the whole hoaven" the wicked arc no more. We find 
 no information that the wicked will be punished anywhere else, than upon 
 the earth. Prov. 11: 31. '-Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed 
 in the earth, much more the wicked and the sinner." When we trace the 
 phrase " much more" through the Bible, we find it used to denote a 
 greater degree of certainty. The wicked never leave this planet. They 
 have their all upon the present earth. The righteous have a " hundred 
 fold" in this world, and in the world to come, everlasting life. 
 
 We will now examine another passage refered to last evening, found in 
 2 Pet. 2 : 6. " And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes 
 condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those 
 that after should live ungodly." Here is an emmnpfa to those who should 
 after live ungodly. The Sodomites were destroyed with fire and brim- 
 stone from heaven. They were literally destroyed. In connection with 
 this we are referred to Jude 7 : 6. " Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and 
 the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornica- 
 tion, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering 
 the vengeance of eternal fire." The word here rended eternal is the same 
 word that is rendered everlasting. The word occurs in Philemon 15. — 
 Paul, when speaking of Onesimus — his absence and return, says : " For 
 perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst received 
 him forever." Did he mean he would remain with him eternally, or for 
 a period of time. 
 
 What was the effect of eternal fire on the Sodomites ? Is Sodom 
 burning now ? No. Are they suffer ing the effects of that fire ? Cer- 
 tainly they are. They arc literally burnt up. The fire is not following 
 their spirits in some unknown region. We beleive the elements of heat 
 or fire will continue eternally. 
 
 We turn to 2 Pet. 3: 7. cc But the Heavens and the earth, which are 
 now, by the same word are kept in store reserved unto fire against the day 
 of judgment aud perdition of ungodly men." Perdition is defined to mean, 
 u . ruin," "eternal death." It was on tbis verse that we made the remark last 
 sabbath, referred to by my opponent, that this would be the gehenna fire, 
 where the wicked would be burnt vp. He did not represent us correctly. 
 We said, that the interior fires of the earth might then burst out and unite 
 with the fire coming " down from God out of heaven," and constitute the 
 gehenna fire. 
 
 We are next referred to the " unquenchable fire," in Mark 9. We shall 
 claim this argument as a very strong one in our favor. If the wicked are 
 to exist forever, why are they not compared to gold and silver, or abestos, or 
 something which can resist heat; not to briars, thorns, chaff and stubble? — 
 We believe it will be literal fire which will destroy the wicked. Ho re- 
 marks, that if it takes one hour to annihilate a man, he has one hour of 
 punishment. Let my opponent remember, this punishment is not dying, but 
 death. In reference to the unquenchable fire, we read in Isa. 66 : 24, 
 " And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have 
 transgressed against me: for the worm shall not die, neither shall their fire 
 be quenched." Again in Jer. 7: 20, "Therefore, thus saith the Lord God; 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 97 
 
 Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon 
 man, and upon beasts, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit 
 of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched" Also in 17: 
 27, " But if ye will not harken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not 
 to bear a burden, even entering iu at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath 
 day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the 
 palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." When Jerusalem was 
 conquered by the Romans under Titus, a fire brand was thrust into the tem- 
 ple and it burned it to the ground. The fire was unquenchable. Suppose 
 this house should take fire to night, and we should say, the fire is unquench- 
 able," should we mean, " it will burn eternally." Gehenna fire is used to 
 illustrate the destruction and consumation of the wicked, and was drawn 
 from the valley of Hinnom, where the Jews cast their filth to burn it up but 
 never to preserve it. And as Christ uses this to illustrate the destruction 
 of the wicked, it shows there is no possibility for them to escape. He says 
 the fire cannot be quenched. Hence we read in Psalm 119: 119 "Thou 
 puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross ; therefore I love thy 
 testimonies." 
 
 Says the Savior in John 15:6. " If a man abide not in me, he is 
 cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and 
 cast them into the fire, and they are burned." Why does a man 
 trim branches from his trees? Is it to preserve them? Certainly 
 not. When they are dry, he burns them. The Savior compares the 
 wicked to branches which are to be burned. In keeping with this is 
 Matt. 13 : 40. " As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in 
 the fire ; so shall it be in the end of this world." When the farmer 
 lias gathered his tares and burned them up, where are they ? Such 
 arc the Savior's illustrations. 
 
 Again in Matt. 3 :12, we read. "Whose fan is in his hand, and 
 he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the 
 garner ; but will burn up the chaff wuth unquenchable fire?'' If the 
 tire could be quenched, they would not be burnt up. " Burn up," 
 is from katakaio, which is defined, " to burn up, consume with fire?'' 
 The fire either burns them up, or it does not burn them at all. We 
 found last evening, that they are to be consumed. Hence in Malachi 
 4 : 1, we read. u For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an 
 oven ; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stub- 
 ble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of 
 hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." They are 
 compared to stubble. If we dig up a tree root and branch, it will 
 die; but when we have burned it up root and branch, where is it ? 
 When we read about unquenchable fire, we look upon it as a strong 
 expression to show that the w T icked must be burned up. 
 
 We will now notice the " second death." 
 
 In Rev. 2:11, we read "Ho that hath an ear let him hear what the 
 
 spirit saith unto the churches ; he that overcometh shall not be hurt of the 
 
 "second death." This emplies there has been a first death. Rev. 20: 6, 
 
 " Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection ; on such the 
 
 7 
 
98 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 second death hath no power." In the 13th and 14th verses, we read, 
 " And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell de- 
 livered up the dead that were in them ; and they were judged every man 
 according to their works." M And death and hell were cast into the lake of 
 fire, this is the second death? My friends, hell is then emptied. 
 
 We will now notice the last mention of the punishment of the 
 wicked, found in the Bible. It is in Rev. 21:8. " But the fear- 
 ful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whore- 
 mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ail liars, shall have their 
 part in the lake which burnetii with lire and brimstone : which is 
 the second death." This is like the example at Sodom, as specified 
 •by Peter and Jude. Those who should afterwards live ungodly, 
 were to be destroyed in the same manner. This we remark, is the 
 last mention of the punishment of the wicked, found in the Bible, 
 and this " is the second death." 
 
 The Bible, when rightly understood, is all on one side. It is ei- 
 ther all in favor of eternal torment, or all in favor of everlasting 
 destruction. 
 
 FIRST SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 It devolves upon me now to present a brief review of the points in my 
 opponent's last speech. 
 
 1. He asks if the body is conscious of loss. I answer, no; hut the 
 spirit is. But he endeavors to set aside my proof from 1 Pet. 3; 3, of the 
 incorruptibility of the spirit; and his method, I must confess, is a novel 
 one. He claims that it is the Holy Spirit in the christian, and not the 
 christian's own spirit, that is said to be incorruptible ; and he refers us to 
 another passage in Peter, where the christian is said to be "born again, not 
 of corruptible seed, bnt of incorruptible." Here he stopped, leaving the 
 impression that this " incorruptible seed" is the Holy Spirit. But if he 
 had read the rest of the verse, he would have discovered his mistake. — 
 The whole passage reads in this wise : " Being born again, not of corrupt- 
 ible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God } which liveth and abid- 
 eth forever." 
 
 2 The Apocalypse, he says " is a book of highly wrought figures." But 
 that, I think, depends upon circumstances with him. It is literal enough 
 when it suits his convenience to have it so. He claims that the New 
 Jerusalem is the literal abode of the righteous ; and a few' evenings ago he 
 attempted to show us that it is the " house not made with hands " of 
 which Paul speaks in 2 Cor. 5: 1, and which the saints are to be clothed 
 with when they put off the u earthly house " — the church. I presume 
 you remember that this was the gentleman's interpretation. That part of 
 the Apocalypse, then, which seems to suits his theory is literal, but that 
 which stands opposed to it he is disposed to figure away. Let this meth- 
 od be adopted, and you can prove anything you please by the Bible. 
 
EVERLASTING PfcNISHMKNT. 99 
 
 3. My opponent contends that the wotdforever (man and aionios) mean.* 
 a limited period : and he has introduced as proof several passages from the 
 Old Testament. Robinson defines the word, everlasting, perpetual, eternal. 
 I am willing, however, for the sake of the argument, to admit that it has 
 sometimes a limited signification. But this fact must be borne in mind ; 
 that it is as perpetual as the being or age to which it is applied. When 
 applied to God, as in Eom. 16 : 26, 1 Tim. 6: 16, Gen. 21 :33,and Isa. 40: 
 28, it means endless duration — absolute eternity; when applied to things 
 of the world, as "mountains" and '"hills," it is as perpetual as the world 
 itself; when applied to the Jewish age, and the thiugs of that age, such 
 as " covenant," " inheritance," it is as perpetual as the Jewish common- 
 wealth: but when applied to the future state, to eternity, it is as perpetual 
 as eternity, it is endless duration ; for eternity will not be superceded by 
 any other age. 
 
 I will now call your attention to the passage referred to in Eev. 14 : 9, 
 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man 
 worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead or in 
 his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrarh of God, which is 
 poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation ; and he shall be 
 tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and 
 in the presence of the Lamb ; and the smoke of their torment ascendeth 
 up for ever and ever ; and they have no rest day nor night, who worship 
 the beasts and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." 
 What I claim in relation to this passage is, that it describes the condition 
 of the wicked after death ; and that I am correct in this view, seems evi- 
 dent from the fact that the condition of the righteons is presented in con- 
 trast in the same connection. " And I heard a voice from heaven, saying 
 unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from hence 
 forth : Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors ; and 
 their works do follew them." The phrase '• day and night " cannot be re- 
 lied on to prove that the punishment is not in eternity ; for it may be an 
 expression used to indicate the uninterrupted perpetuity of the torment. — 
 There is no intermission of the punishment, as there is none between day and 
 night. The term " fire and brimstone," and *■ the smoke of their tor- 
 ment ascendeth up for ever and ever," are the strongest symbols of perpet- 
 ual conscious suffering. 
 
 4 We are again refered to (jehenna. We are told that the Savior used. 
 it as an illustration — as a symbol of distruction, and not of conscious suf- 
 fering. But what could more fitly represent eternal conscious suffering 
 then the worm that dktli not, and the Ji re that never shall be Quenched. In 
 the literal valley of Hinnom, the worm has long since died, and the fire has 
 long since been quenched ; but it will not be so in the future state of the 
 wicked; " their worm dieth not; and the fire is not quenched." But we 
 are refered to Malachi 4: 1, as proof that the wicked will be utterly extin- 
 guished — burnt up " root and branch." If the gentleman takes this in a 
 literal sense, then the wicked must have literal ''roots" and literal ''branch- 
 es." Hence if he is not willing to adopt this conclusion, he must admit 
 that the passage is figurative. What is the figurative use of " root and 
 
;100 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 branch?'' It means progenitor and descendent. Jesus is called "a branch 
 cf the stem of Jesse," and he says also, " I am the root and the offspring 
 of David." My opponent says, if hades is a place of punishment, the 
 punishment will not be eternal, for hades is to come to an end. Here he 
 faetrays the fact that he does not believe in eternal punishment. But I 
 never claimed that hades is the place of future punishment for the wicked. 
 Gehenna is the word employed to represent that, while hades is the inter- 
 mediate state, or place of departed spirits between death and the resur- 
 rection. 
 
 It seems that a misunderstanding has risen with regard to what I said 
 a few evenings ago respecting my opponents method of interpretation. I 
 did not find fault with him for quoting Old Testament scriptures, but for 
 not; interpreting them in the light of the New, which I claim is an infal- 
 lible commentary on the Old. I said he found certain obscure passages 
 & a the Old Testament; and, instead of bringing them forward and inter- 
 preting them in the light of the New Testament, he reverses the order, by 
 dragging the New Testament back to the darkness of the old. But he 
 asks with an air of apparent triumph, " Was not the Holy Spirit as intel- 
 ligent in the prophets as in the apostles?" I answer, yes ; but God did 
 ■not see fit to reveal these matters so clearly through the prophets as He 
 lias through Christ and his apostles, under the perfect " ministration of 
 •the Spirit." All the great matter relating to man's destiny have been 
 progressive in their developement. I will illustrate this by a single in- 
 stance. 
 
 It was the purpose of God before the beginning of the ages, to constitute 
 of the two hetrogeneous elements of society — the Jews and the Gentiles — 
 an organization that should be a perfect unit, " builded together for a hab- 
 itation of God through the Spirit." This was the Christian Church or 
 Kingdom, into which the Gentiles were to be brought as well as the Jews. 
 This porpose was afterwards progressively developed. It was " dropped 
 into prophecy," and various intimations of it were given in the Old Testa- 
 ment scriptures — increasing in clearness as they approach the Christian 
 Era. And when Jesus appeared as a teacher, he shed more light on the 
 subject. In his parable of the sheep-fold he says ; " Other sheep I have 
 which are not of this (Jewish) fold ; them also I must bring ; and they 
 shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one Shepherd." It 
 was still more clearly embodied in the Commission which he gave his 
 Apostles before he ascended to Heaven, in which he commanded them t® 
 "go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature-'' to go " and 
 teach all nations" Here the distinction between Jew and Gentile is ab- 
 rogated. And when the Apostle Peter opened this Commission on the 
 day of Penticost, and preached the first gospel discourse under it " with 
 the Holy Spirit sent down from Heaven," he said, "The promise is to you 
 (Jews) and to your children, and to all that are afar off, (the Gentiles) even 
 as many as the Lord our God shall call." Still when Peter gave utterance 
 to this language, he did not comprehend its full import. The full light 
 had not yet been shed on the subject. And it was not till after he had re- 
 ceived a special revelation at Joppa in the vision of the " sheet kint to- 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 101 
 
 gether at the four corners, and let down from heaven ;" and the Spirit 
 had said to him, " Arrise and go with " the messengers sent from Corne- 
 lius " nothing doubting; for, behold, I have sent them," that the truth 
 flashed upon his mind in all its clearness. " And he opened his mouth, 
 and said, " Of a truth I perceive that God is no respector of persons ; but 
 in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted 
 of Him." Here the great truth is fully brought out. that the Gentiles as 
 well as the Jews are received into the Kingdom of God ; and that all men 
 are accepted on the ground of obedience to Jesus Christ. 
 
 This illustrates my idea of the progressive development of the great 
 matters of revelatim. I cannot therefore be convicted of inconsistency 
 for going to the Old Testament for proofs, provided I bring them for- 
 ward to the light of the New Testament, and compare them with the 
 teachings of Christ and his apostles. My method is, not to advance 
 backwards, but forwards, not to begin with the New Testament and leave 
 off with the Old, but to begin with the Old and leave off with the New. 
 And that is what I was doing in my last night's speech when my time 
 expired. I will therefore finish my reading from the New Testament. — 
 Let it be borne in mind that I cite these passages to show that the word 
 apollumi does not mean extinction of being. 
 
 Matt. 15 : 23. " But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto 
 the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Here the word apollumi, which 
 my opponent claims means extinction of being, is translated lost, and is 
 applied to the Jews who were then living in Palestine. According to my 
 opponent's definition of the word, Jesus was sent to non-entities ! But 
 again : Matt. 27 : 20. " But the chief priests and elders persuaded 
 the multitude that they should askBarabbas, and destroy Jesus." Here the 
 word is rendered i: destroy," and is applied to Jesus. But how did the 
 Jewish rulers destroy Jesus ? Bid they reduce him to non-existence — 
 extinguish his being ? By no means. They crucified him as a malefact- 
 or, between two thieves ; but his body and soul both remained — the one 
 did not see corruption, nor was the other left in the unseen world ; but 
 both were re-united on the third day. 
 
 Mark 1 : 8. " Let us alone ; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus 
 of Nazareth ? art thou come to destroy us ? I know thee who thou art, 
 the Holy One of God." The word "destroy" in this passage is applied by 
 the demons to their expulsion from the human body. Jesus expelled them 
 from the bodies which they inhabited, but we have no proof that he ever 
 extinguished the being of any of them. Luke 19 : 10. u For the Son of 
 man is come to seek and save that which was lost." I have always supposed 
 that Jesus came to save the world. The world, then, was lost, (apollumi) 
 perished, destroyed. Was the being of the world extinguished — blotted 
 out of existence — annihilated ? If so, why did Jesus come to seek and 
 save it"? Did he make such a mistake as to come to seek and save that 
 which had no existence — a non-entity ? This must be the case if my op- 
 ponent's theory is correct ! But again : Jno. 17 : 12. " While I was 
 with them in the world, I kept them in thy name : those that thou gavest 
 me have I kept ; and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, 
 
102 
 
 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. " Here the word h translated 
 ** fas? } again, and is applied to Judas who is still alive. It cannot, there- 
 fore, m^an extinction. These citations, I think, are sufficient to show the 
 utter untenableness of my opponent's position. I will, therefore, leave 
 this point for the present ; and introduce a few passages of Scripture to 
 show that conscious suffering is the punishment of the wicked. 
 
 Prov. 1 : 24-30. '• Because I have called, and ye have refused ; I have 
 stretched out my hand, and no man regarded it ; but ye have set at nought 
 all my counsel, and would none of my proof : I also will laugh at your 
 calamity ; I will mock when your fear cometh ; when your fear cometh 
 as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirl-wind ; when distress 
 and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will 
 not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me ; for 
 that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord : 
 they would none of my counsel ; they dispised all my reproof. There- 
 fore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled With their 
 own devices." 
 
 The point in this passage is, that distress and anguish are declared to be 
 the punishment of the wicked. These are elements of conscious suffer- 
 ing, and cannot co- exist with annihilation. Distress and anguish cannot 
 come upon non-entities. 
 
 Dan. 12 : 2. " And many of them that sleep in the dust of the 
 earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever- 
 lasting contempt. 1 ' The question is, if the wicked are to be blotted out 
 of existence — to be punished with the eternal extinction of their being — 
 how are they to experience a consciousness of shame and everlasting con- 
 tempt ? Can non-entities experience these feelings ? The literal render- 
 ing of this passage as it is found in the Septuagint is " ignomy and shame 
 eternal.'''' Hence the wicked are to be etenally conscious, and to suffer a 
 sense of ignomy and shame forever. In connection with this, I will call 
 attention to Jno. 5 : 28-29. " Marvel not at this : for the hour is com- 
 ing in the which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and 
 shall come forth ; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life ; 
 and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation." Daniel 
 and the Savior both speak of the resurrection of the dead and of the con- 
 dition of the wicked after that event ; and what Daniel calls '/ ignomy 
 and shame eternal," the Savior calls '"damnation." Hence the damna- 
 tion of the wicked is eternal ; and this is in perfect harmony with Jno. 3 : 
 36. " He that hath the Son of God hath everlasting life : but he that be- 
 lieveth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abidcth on 
 him." Can the wrath of God abide on a non-entity '( I insist upon it, that 
 if my friend's position is true, there is no meaning in these passages. But 
 he refers us to the " second death," £s proof that the wicked will be anni- 
 hilated. Before ho can make anything out of that, he must prove that 
 death is an extinction of being. If the first death is not an extinction of 
 being, why should the second be ? Is there not an anology between them ? 
 And has not the gentleman utterly failed to prove that the first death is an 
 extinction of being? Nay, more: has he not admitted that it is not? He 
 
EVUilLASfCNG PUSI8HMENT. 10<5 
 
 has defined death to be " the extinction of life? not the extinction of be- 
 ing." And this is substantially the definition that I gave of it at the be- 
 ginning of the debate. I have all along contended that death is the ab- 
 sence of life — the result of a separation between the body and spirit, that 
 when the spirit depart* from the body, it leaves it dead ; and hence James 
 says: " the body without the spirit is dead." This proves that the body is 
 the part of man that dies — that life is absent from: "the body without the 
 spirit is dead" Death is, therefore, a negative state — the absence of life 
 from whatever is dead; and as the body is that which is declared to be 
 dead, it is the absence of life from the body. Hence, if death is the death 
 of the body, the resurrection is the resurrection of the body. It is the res- 
 urrection of the dead, and the body is that which is dead — it is dead in the 
 absence of the spirit. And with this agrees the testimony of Matt. 27: 
 52." " And the graves wore opened, and many of the bodies of the saints 
 which slept arose." I wish it remembered that before my opponent can 
 ciaim the " second death" as any proof of his proposition, he is bound to 
 *how that death is an extinction of being. And that he can never do. Ho 
 has tried his best and you can see with what success. 
 
 I will now say a word respecting Lexicons. It has been manifest to you 
 that my friend's Lexicon's and mine have not always agreed. The reason 
 is this: ho quotes mainly from Classical Lexicons, while I quote from those 
 of the New Testament. Tho Greek of the Classic's differ* from the Hel- 
 lenistic Greek of the New Testament ; and hence words are not used in the 
 ^ame sense in the former as they are in the latter. [Time expired.'] 
 
 SECOND SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 We see but very little in our opponent's remarks that need a 
 roply. He admits that aionion is sometimes limited. He also ad- 
 mits that the account in Rev. 14 : 11, is (symbolical. 
 
 He refers to Mai. 4:1, where it is said all the proud and all the 
 wicked " shall be stubble and the day that cometh shall burn them 
 up saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor 
 branch;" and says root and branch means father and son. We do 
 not see how he helps the. matter any ; for his position makes out that- 
 father and son are to be burnt up. But that is not the signification 
 of this text. Let us read from Prov. 12:3. "A man shall not be 
 established by wickedness : but the root of the righteous shall not 
 be moved.'" Does root in this verse reier to the son of the right- 
 eous ? The plain idea is that the righteous man is established like a 
 tree, and is not to be moved by temptations. Take another exam- 
 ple: Rom. 11: 16. " For if the first fruit be holy the lump is aLso 
 holy ; and if the root be holy, so are the branches." Does that 
 ftiean, if the father is holy all his sons are ? 
 
 He quotes some passages to show that the Bible speaks of suffer- 
 ing. We admit there is to be weeping and wailing at the judgment, 
 
104 DISCUSSION 05T ? '* 
 
 but my brother has not produced the proof that it will be eternal — 
 He says death is not the extinction of life. We would like to have 
 him give a definition of thanatos, which is rendered death, and Is 
 defined " extinction of life." The Bible declares, " The soul that 
 sinneth, it shall die." 
 
 He says his plan is to begin at the Old Testament and go on to 
 the 'New. We have no objection to this, and trust he will allow us 
 to do the same. 
 
 As we are charged with advocating heresy, we will bring up a 
 witness to examine, and wish the whole congregation to act as jury- 
 men. The witness is Paul. We will bring all he has said on the 
 subject of punishment, if we have time. The subject is first men- 
 tioned in Acts 13 : 40-41. u Beware therefore, lest that come upon 
 you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and 
 wonder, and^ensA; for I work a work in your days, a work which 
 ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." — 
 Again in verse 46. " Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, 
 It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spok- 
 en to you : but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves un- 
 worthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." This is all 
 Paul says in the Acts. Here we have the words " perish" and 
 " everlasting life" contrasted. The word here rendered perish 
 aphanizo, is defined by Liddell and Scott, u to destroy utterly," t6 to 
 disappear and be heard of no more." He says we have used the 
 clasical Lexicons, So we have; because they are much the best. — 
 We have quoted from theological ones too. Greenfield is certainly 
 theological, Webster defines perish to " depart wholly, to die, to 
 waste away, to be extirpated, to come to nothing." 
 
 We will now come to Paul's letters. We will first examine his 
 letter to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. 1 : 18. " For the preaching of the 
 cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, 
 it is the power of God." Here the word rendered perish is apollu- 
 mi. It is contrasted with salvation. When a Ship, sailing in an 
 ocean-storm, is wrecked, and we say all on board are perished, what 
 do we mean ? That they have gone into torment ? This word Is 
 defined, " to destroy totally, to die." Yet my friend says it does not 
 signify extinction of life in any case. We will give some examples 
 of apollumi. We have given some of them before, but wish to stir 
 up my brother's mind by way of remembrance. See Matt. 22 : 7. 
 " But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth ; and he sent forth 
 his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." 
 Were these murderers alive, when they were destroyed ? Again in 
 Luke 17 : 27. " They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they 
 were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the 
 ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." Also Luke 5: 37, 
 M And no man putteth new wine into old bottles ; else the new wine 
 will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish." 
 
 Mr. Clayton. We are not discussing broken bottles now. 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 
 
 105 
 
 Me. Grant. There it is — a little more ridicule. 
 
 Mr. Grant proceeded : This last example shows that apollitmi 
 does not mean torment ; but it is used to signify the future punish- 
 ment of the wicked ; consequently, their punishment is not torment. 
 From the Old Testament we learn that the flood destroyed both 
 man and beast. The men were as truly destroyed as the creeping 
 things. Did that destruction send the spirits of the beasts and men 
 to torment in the " spirit land?" The same thing is predicated of 
 beasts as of men. 
 
 We will go on with the examination of the witness 1 Cor. 8 : 11. 
 44 And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish for 
 whom Christ died ? " Here we have apolluml again, but it does not 
 mean he is to be tormented. We pass to 1 Cor. 15: 16-18. "If 
 the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised. Then they also whirl) 
 are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." Here is the same woi \\ 
 again. Does it mean those who have fallen asleep in Christ have 
 gone into torment ? What does he mean ? If our brother's posi- 
 tion is true, then the spirit goes to be with Christ, or to paradise 
 without a resurrection. How then are they perished. Suppose a 
 man who died during the time the Savior was in the tomb should go 
 in spirit to heaven, or paradise; and when there this passage should 
 be quoted to him, while he is singing the praises of the Lord. He 
 could boldly say Paul's statement is not true. Christ is in the grave, 
 and before his resurrection, I am taken to paradise and am not per- 
 ished. I would like to have my brother meet this point. Also 
 1 Cor. 15 : 32. 44 If after the manner of men I have fought with 
 beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not ? — 
 Let us eat and drink; for to-morrow Ave die." Here we have the 
 word die, from ap>othneesko, which is defined, 44 to die, to become 
 putrescent, rot as seeds." This word is applied to Lazarus in John 
 11: 14. "Then said Jesus plainly, Lazarus is dead." There is the 
 same word, and if said of Lazarus's spirit which my brother claims 
 to be the reed man, then it shows it was dead. Would Jesus have 
 said "Lazarus is dead?"* when Lazarus was alive in hades? Yet he 
 called him out of the tomb, showing that there was hades. 
 
 44 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy ; for 
 the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." — 1 Cor. 3: 17. 
 What does he mean ? It is the spirit that is guilty, admitting my 
 brother's position ; then that must be destroyed. " Him shall God 
 destroy." Here the word rendered destroy pthiro, is defined, " to 
 injure, spoil, destroy." Does the Holy Spirit, dwell in this man's 
 immortal spirit, or in his body ? It is certainly in the accountable 
 being — the one to be destroyed. 
 
 We will pass on and look over Paul's second letter to the Corinth- 
 ians. Chap. 2 : 15-16. " For we are unto God a sweet savour of 
 Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish : To the one 
 we are the savour of death unto deeith ; and to the other the savour 
 of life unto life." Here comes apollumi again. One class is going 
 
106 
 
 DISCUSSION Q3T 
 
 on to life, the other to death. My brother says no man dies, — his 
 body dies but that is not the man. With his view the body is not 
 accountable, and hence can receive no part of the penalty. Now we 
 would ask what conclusion will the Corinthian brethren come to 
 from these letters ? Would they think the wicked are to live for- 
 ever ? 
 
 We turn next to Paul's letter to the Galations, chap. 6 : 7-8. " Be 
 not deceived : God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth, 
 that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the 
 flesh reap corruption-, but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of 
 the Spirit reap life everlasting." Here is " corruption" on one side, 
 and " life everlasting" on the other. The word rendered corruption 
 is pthora, and is defined, " destruction, ruin, perdition, death." That is 
 all he says to the Galations. 
 
 Let us see what he says to the Philippians, chap. 1 : 28. "And in 
 nothing terrified by your adversaries ; which is to them an evident 
 token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God. Perdi- 
 tion on the one side, and salvation on the other. The word render- 
 ed perdition is apolia, signifying, "loss, losing, destruction, death, 
 eternal ruin." Webster defines it " utter destruction, eternal death." — ■ 
 Again in chap. 3: 18-10. "For many walk, of whom I have told 
 you often weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ ; 
 whose end is destruction'' 1 What will become of his enemies ? Their 
 end is " destruction." Mr. Webster defines destruction to be " the 
 annihilation of anything; that form of parts which constitute it 
 what it is." When anything is destroyed, as a house, or barn, or 
 animal, or anything else w r e consider that form of matter as no long- 
 er existing. What conclusion would the Philippian brethren form 
 from this letter ? That the wicked are to live forever ? 
 
 Let us take a few examples of the use of apolia Mark 14 : 4, ' ; And 
 there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, why 
 was this waste of the ointment made ?" The word waste in this example 
 does not mean torment. Again in 2 Peter o : 7 we read, " The heavens 
 and the earth what are now. by the same word are kept in store, reserved 
 unto fire against the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men." 
 Also in Matt. 7 : 18. " Enter ye in at the strait gate gate ; for wide is 
 the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction and many there 
 be which go in thereat.' 1 These are the same words rendered destruction, 
 but do not mean torment. It seems Paul was a " destruetionist," To 
 what conclusion would the Phillippian brothren come from Paul's letter ? 
 
 We turn to the first letter to Timothy 6 : 9. " But they that will be 
 rich fall into temptations and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful 
 lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition" Here we have the 
 word destruction from olethros, which means " ruin, destruction, death, 
 the loss of life." Would this lead Timothy to preach eternal misery ? — 
 Not a word about it yet. 
 
 We will pass to Paul's letter to the Hebrews, 10: 38-39. "Now the 
 just shall live by faith ; but if any men draw back, my soul shall have 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 107 
 
 no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdi- 
 T'on ; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." Again in He- 
 brews 10 : 26-31. " For if we sin willfully after that we have received the 
 knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But 
 a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which 
 ,>iiali devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without 
 mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment, 
 suppose ye. shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the 
 Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he 
 crag sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of 
 ^race ? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, 
 £ will recompense saith the Lord. And again, the Lord shall judge his 
 people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." — > 
 Here we have the word osthiro, which signifies " to devour, consume, as 
 by eating and drinking." When we have eaten an apple it is not grow- 
 ing upon the tree. We pass to chap. 6 : 7-8. " For the earth which 
 drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs 
 meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God. But 
 that which beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto curs- 
 ing; whose end is to be burned ; } This is New Testament doctrine, a^ 
 well as Old. What conclusion will the Hebrews come to ? That we are 
 to suifer eternal torment, or be destroyed ? 
 
 We pass to Paul's letter to the Romans. We will read chap. 2 : 4-12, 
 and if we do not find eternal torment here we shall find it nowhere. u Ox 
 viespisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffer- 
 big ; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance % 
 But, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasureth up unto thyself 
 •v» r rnth against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment 
 of God ; who will render to every man according to his deeds : to them 
 who by patient continuence in well doing, seek for glory and honor and 
 riunortality, — eternal life; but unto them that are contentious, and do 
 not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, trib- 
 ulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil ; of the Jew 
 first, and also of the Gentile; "For there is no respect of persons with 
 God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without 
 law ; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law." 
 We believe the wicked will experience wrath, tribulation and anguish at- 
 the judgmeut, but the Bible does not teach that they are to suffer it eternal- 
 ly, but will die. John Brown felt sorrowful in anticipating his death, but 
 that sorrow was not his punishment. The law did not say torment, but 
 death. Our punishment for continuing in sin, is loss of life. We are ex- 
 horted to seek for glory, and honor, and immortality." We must seek for 
 it because we have not got it yet. " For as many as have sinned without 
 law shall also perish without law." Here is the word apollumi again. — 
 Let us see what the law says relative to the penalty for sin. Is it eternal 
 misery or eternal death. 
 
 We will turn now to the first chapter where he describes the most wick- 
 ed class of men, it seems, that ever lived. Read from verse 21 to 32. — 
 
108 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 '* Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God 
 neither were thankful ; but became vain in their imaginations, and their 
 foolish heart was darkened. And even as they did not like to retain God 
 in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those 
 things which are not convenient ; being filled with all unrighteousness, 
 fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness ; full of envy, murder, 
 debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbitters, haters of God, de- 
 spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents 
 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, im- 
 placable, unmerciful : who knowing the judgment of God, that they which 
 commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have 
 pleasure in them that do them." What does he say they are worthy of ? 
 Thanatos, — u extinction of life." There is nothing in them worth saving. 
 They are full of pollution and corruption. They deserve to die. Would 
 the popular preachers of this day write as many letters as Paul, say as 
 much about the punishment as he did, and not mention eternal misery ? 
 Rom. 14: 15. " But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walk- 
 est thou not charitably. Destroy not hiiii with thy meat, for whom Christ 
 died." Here is apollumi again, but no idea of torment! The same 
 thought is conveyed in chap. 14: 20. " For meat destroy not the work 
 of God." In chap. 8 : 13, we read, " For if ye live after the flesh, ye 
 shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, 
 ye shall live." It says M mortify the deeds of the bodyf' : and not the 
 spirit', thus showing that the physical organism formed of the dust of the 
 ground is the accountable man, and not the spirit in k ' his nostrils." The 
 same word, (apollumi) occurred in 1 Cor. 15 : 32. We turn to Rom. 9 : 
 22. " What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power 
 known, endured with much longsuffering the vessel of wrath fitted to 
 destruction." Destruction is from a/polia, which is defined as we have 
 seen, to mean, " death" •' eternal ruin.''' Rom. 6 : 16. " Know ye not, 
 that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to 
 whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteous- 
 ness ?" " Whether of sin unto • thantos" or of obedience unto right- 
 eousness." 
 
 We now come to the full definition of the law ; in chap. 6: 21: 23, which 
 closes up what he said to the Romans, " What fruit had ye then in those 
 things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 
 
 But now being made free from sin, and become servants of God. ye 
 have your fruits unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages 
 of sin is death ; but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord." " The end of those things is death.' 1 ' thanatos — extinction of 
 life. " But now being made free from sin," •' the end is everlasting life." 
 One ends in death, the other in everlasting life. This is the law. Those 
 who continue in sin, must die. My brother says, " The wages of sin is 
 eternal conscious suffering." Paul says " The wages of sin is death." — 
 Which shall we believe ? This is all Paul says to the Romans. To what 
 conclusion will they come ? 
 
 We pass to his first letter to the Thessalonians 5: 3. " For when they 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 1Q0 
 
 shali say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction coineth upon them.'' 
 Sudden death or " loss of life.'' Here is destruction again. We turn 
 next to 2 Thess. 2: 8-12. " And then shall that wicked be revealed, 
 whom the Lord shall comsume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall des- 
 troy with the brightness of his coming : even him, whose coming is after 
 the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and 
 with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish ; because 
 they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, xlnd 
 for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that the}' should be- 
 lieve a lie : that they all might be damned who believe not the truth, but 
 had pleasure in unrighteousness." 
 
 Here the word rendered destroy, Jcatargeo, means ' ; to cause to cease, 
 destroy, bring to an end." It is applied to the Devil and death. We 
 read in Heb. 2: 14. ''Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of 
 flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same ; that 
 through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, 
 the devil. Hence, finally, God will have a clean universe again, free from 
 sin and death, and wicked beings. 
 
 The same word is applied to death in 1 Cor. 15: 20, " The last enemy 
 that shall be destroyed is death." This is like hanging the hangman, after 
 he has hung the last man, so that nobody else can be hung. When death 
 has done its last work in destroying the wicked with the " second death,'' 1 
 then death itself must die. 
 
 Once more and we shall have produced all that Paul has said on the 
 subject. 2 Thess. 1:5: 9. Which is a manifest token of the righteous 
 judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, 
 for which ye also suffer : seeing it is a righteous tiling with God to recom- 
 pense tribulation to them that trouble you ; and to you who are troubled 
 rest, with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his 
 mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, 
 and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall be 
 punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and 
 from the glory of his power. 
 
 Has lie anywhere' taught eternal misery ? What is the wages of sin ? 
 u Death." Says he, I have not shunned to declare unto you all the coun- 
 sel of God." But he has not said one word about eternal torment; hence 
 it is not the counsel of God." Again he says, " I kept back nothing that 
 was profitable." He has kept back everything about eternal misery, 
 therefore it is not profitable. 
 
 SECOND SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON. 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 I hope that none of the audience will allow themselves to be at all 
 excited on this subject. We must keep cool if we would reason 
 correctly. My opponent has quoted repeatedly his favorite passage from 
 1 Cor. 15 : 18. " Then they also which have fallen asleep in Christ are 
 
110 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 perished." He imagines he has got me into a difficult spot here; and 
 wishes I would explain the matter. Well, I will attempt to do it ; and 
 let me say before I begin that I will suspend the whole controversy upoo 
 my ability to show that this passage does not favor my opponent's posi- 
 tion. 
 
 The Apostle in this chapter is proving the resurrection of the dead ; — 
 and his method in the first part of the chapter is what logicians call the 
 reductio ad absurdum, or the method of proving a proposition by reducing 
 the opposite hypothesis to an absurdity. He says, " If Christ be nor 
 risen" — which is the opposite of his proposition — these five consequence* 
 must follow : 
 
 1. Our preaching is vain. 
 
 2. Your faith is also vain. 
 
 3. You are yet in your sins. 
 
 4. We are false witnesses of Christ, 
 
 5. All who have fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 
 
 But none of these things are true ; therefore Christ is raised from the 
 dead. This is the Apostles argument. Now, let it be distinctly noted 
 that the word apolhimi, here translated " perished," is rendered u lose" 
 and " losV some thirty times in the New Testament ; and that it is ap- 
 plied to the condition of the world before Christ came." " The Sou of 
 man is come to seek and save that which was lost or perished (apollumi.) 
 It was then because the world was " lost" or perished" already that Je- 
 sus come to seek and save it ; and of course if he was not raised from the 
 dead the entire object of his mission is defeated ; he is yet in the grave, 
 and cannot save any; all who trusted in him and fell asleep in him, haw 
 perished with the rest of mankind. He came to seek and save those 
 who had perished, and if he is not raised from the dead, they remain in 
 their perished condition still ; he has not saved them ; the whole affair 
 has proved a failure. Here, then, is a solution of the matter ; and one, 
 
 I think, which my opponent cannot evade with all his " turning and 
 twisting." 
 
 My opponent says, " All the torment the wicked will experience will 
 be in anticipation of destruction." Well, if that be the ease, all the 
 punishment will be in anticipation ; and what becomes of his position that 
 the punishment does not begin till the sinner is blotted out of existence ? 
 
 II The punishment of the wicked," he says, " does not consist in torment 
 or conscious suffering;" but when conscious suffering ceases, it gives place 
 to non-existence — the sinner is annihilated ; therefore, according to his 
 theory, there can be no punishment for the wicked. It will be impossible 
 for him to save himself from this dilemma. 
 
 Again, the wicked are represented as being punished in a place ; it is 
 called hell, (gehenna) — " everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his 
 angels" — " outer darkness, where there is weeping, and wailing, and gnash- 
 ing of teeth." But according to my opponent's position there can be no 
 place of punishment. His theory not only annihilates the wicked ; but, 
 in so doing it annihilates all punishment and place of punishment. Non- 
 entities can neither be punished nor occupy any place. The conscious 
 
EVERLASTING ITNI&HMENT. Ill 
 
 Buffering which the wicked endure while they are in existence and while 
 they occupy a place is no part of their punishment — that does not hegia 
 till they* are extinguished; and when the}- are extinguished they are no- 
 where ; therefore there can be no place of punishment. 
 
 But let me call your attention to Luke 13 : 28. " But he shall say, I 
 tell you, 1 know you not whence you are ; depart from me all you work- 
 ers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye 
 shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the king- 
 dom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." Here is a class of sinners 
 who will be in conscious suffering, weeping and gnashing their teeth, 
 when they shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in 
 the kingdom of God, and they themselves cast out. Now, when does 
 my opponent teach that the kingdom will be established V Not till after 
 the old earth is destroyed and the new formed out of its melted elements. 
 He contends that it is to be established in the New Earth. But all the 
 wicked are to be burned with the old earth ; the interior fire is the ge- 
 henna lire which is to consume them. Here they are then, after they are 
 annihilated, 4k weeping and gnashing their teeth"' and seeing u Abraham, 
 Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and they 
 themselves thrust out." This is another of the beauties of Eld. Grant's 
 theology. 
 
 Let us now turn to Kev. '22 : 14. ' l Blessed are they that do his com- 
 mandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter 
 in through the <*ates into the city. For without are non-entities! — no; 
 but it should be so to suit my opponent's theory. " For without are dogs, 
 and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and who- 
 soever loveth and makoth a lie. Here they are again after they are eter- 
 nally extinguished ; after the old earth has been melted like an old stove, 
 as the gentleman told us on Sunday, and run into a new one ; after the 
 gehenna fire which annihilates them has become extinct ; after the New 
 Jerusalem lias become the abode of the righteous. This is rather too late 
 in the day to harmonize with the gentleman's theory. How will he get 
 along with these difficulties ? We shall see, I presume in his next 
 speech. 
 
 But again : The wicked are sentenced u to everlasting fire, prepared 
 for the devil and his angels." This " everlasting fire," my opponent says, 
 H is the interior fire of the earth." I should like to know if this fire in 
 the interior of the earth was " prepared for the devil and his angels V" — 
 I had always supposed it was one of the necessary constituents of the 
 earth's composition. But according to my opponent's theory, it was 
 " prepared for the devil and his angels," and that after the food; for he 
 says, " the interior of the antediluvian earth was water." Then God 
 poured the water out of the interior of the antediluvian earth, for the 
 purpose of destroying the sinners of those times, and filled it with fire 
 for the destruction of the devil and his angels. We are informed that 
 Jesus will say to the wicked at the Judgment, " Depart from me, ye 
 cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. M — 
 Where are these fallen angels ? Peter says God has " cast them down to 
 
112 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Ml (tartarus) and reserved them in chains of darkness to the judgment 
 of the great day." Then they are occupying a place now, and to that 
 place the wicked will be consigned at the day of judgment. Is that 
 place the interior of the earth ? Man was associated with the fallen an- 
 gels in apostatizing from God, and he will he associated with them in the 
 judgment, the final condemnation and punishment. 
 
 I)o you say this is an awful doctrine ? It is the sentence of Christ 
 himself; " Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for 
 the devil and his angels.' 1 Does any man claim to be more benevolent 
 than Jesus, the sinner's friend; he who was rich, but for our sakes became 
 poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich ; who laid aside 
 the glory which he had with the father before the world was created, and 
 came into this world to suffer and die for us ? Does any man claim to be 
 mare benevolent than Jesus ? Away with such sickly sentimentality. — 
 It will be no excuse for }^ou in the day of judgment. If the doom is 
 terrible, escape from it now, while you have the opportunity — while your 
 lives are prolonged in mercy, and the invitation is sounding in your ears 
 — " To-day if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." God has 
 made ample provision for all of you ; and He is not willing that any 
 should perish. He is willing to save you. He is waiting to be gracious. 
 u Escape, then, from the wrath to come, and lay hold on everlasting life." 
 If you do not, you must expect to suffer the consequences. God's right- 
 eous judgment will be vindicated in your eternal punishment. 
 
 I come now to another argument based on degrees of punishment. — 
 Does the Bible teach this doctrine ? Let us examine and see. Rom. 2: 
 4-6. " But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thy- 
 self wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judg- 
 ment of God ; who will render to every man according to his deeds." — 
 Here it is called the righteous judgment of God to render to every man 
 according to his deeds. And this righteous judgment will be revealed in 
 u the day of wrath" or the day of judgment. Col. 3 : 25. " But he that 
 decth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done ; and there 
 is no respect of persons." 2 Cor. 5 : 10. " For we must all appear be- 
 fore the judgment seat of Christ; that very one may receive the things 
 done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or 
 bad." Luke 12 : 47-48. " And that servant which knew his lord's will, 
 and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beat- 
 en with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things 
 worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes" These passages 
 most plainly teach the doctrine of degrees in punishment. But according 
 to my opponent's theory there can be. no such thing. His position anni- 
 hilates all degrees of punishment as effectually as it annihilates the sin- 
 ner. Indeed, it annihilates all punishment and place of punishment, as 
 we have before shown ; but admitting for the sake of the argument, that 
 there is punishment in annihilation, we deny that there are any degrees of 
 punishment in it. " The punishment does not begin till the sinner is anni- 
 hilated." Annihilation and annihilation are equal. The greatest sinner 
 is annihilated, and the least sinner cannot be less than annihilated. The 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 113 
 
 bloody tyrant of Rome who lighted the city with burning christians, and 
 the man who is found guilty of the smallest offence are both alike anni- 
 lated. It is impossible that there can be any degrees of punishment in 
 annihilation. But the Bible teaches degrees of punishment. Therefore, 
 the theory of my opponent cannot be true. 
 
 I will now call attention to Heb. 10: 23. " He that despised Moses' law, 
 died without mercy under two or three witnesses : of how much sorer pun- 
 ishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under 
 foot the son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith 
 he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of 
 grace ?" 
 
 Here is a sorer punishment than to " die without mercy." What can this 
 be if my opponent's theory is correct? Surely, to throw a man into the 
 flames and stifle all consciousness in a few moments, is not so sore a pun- 
 ishment as to be pelted to death with stones, as was the case with those who 
 despised the law of Moses. It was often a painful and lingering death ; 
 bat to be thrown into the fire and consumed, destroys all consciousness in 
 a few moments. Instead of being a sorer punishmedt, therefore, it is not so 
 sore an one ; even admitting that the suffering which precedes annihilation 
 is the punishment of the wicked. But this my opponent has nothing to do 
 with : his proposition excludes it, and he has admitted that it is no part of 
 the punishment of the wieked ; that, he says, "does not begin till the sin- 
 i4«r is dead." And when he is dead he is annihilated ; therefore he can 
 have no punishment. It will puzzle the gentleman, upon his hypothesis, to 
 tell what this " sorer punishment" is. 
 
 It is a mistaken notion, my friends, to suppose that there is mercy in pun- 
 ishment — that is, meroy to the sinner punished ; I mean, of course, in his 
 final punishment. It is, so far as he is concerned, an act ef simple justice : 
 he is punished according to his deserts. He has put himself beyond the 
 reach of mercy by negleGting the Gospel, in which the Divine mercy is em- 
 bodied ; and now he has to meet the naked justice of God at the bar of 
 judgment. We meet the mercy of God in salvation ; His retributive jus- 
 tice in damnation. Hence my opponent's effort last evening to awaken a 
 sympathy in the minds of his hearers in favor of his position, by represent- 
 ing it as being more compatible witk the mercy of God than the doctrine 
 which I advocate, was altogether irrelevant and out of place. Let us now 
 turn to 2 Thess. 1:9. " Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction 
 (olethron aionion) from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his 
 power." This is the gentleman's stronghold. He relies on this text, he 
 says, to prove his proposition ; that is, to get the eternal and the extinction 
 of being together. He told us frankly last evening that this is his method 
 of proving his proposition; that he should first show that the words "de- 
 struction," "perish/' &c mean extinction of being, and then he should find 
 aionion (eternal) prefixed to it in this passage, and that would make it eter- 
 nal extinction of being. Hence if I can succeed in cutting him off here, I 
 shall have overthrown his entire argument. Now let us keep cool a 
 moment. 
 
 His great effort last night was to prove that apollumi and apolia, not 
 olethros, mean extinction of being. Hence if he could succeed in showing 
 that these words mean extinction of being, what would it all amount to ? — 
 He could not be allowed to substitute either of them for olethros in the text, 
 so as to make it apolia aionion instead of olethros aionion. He must first 
 prove that olethros, the word in the text, meaus extinction of being, before 
 
114 discussion osr 
 
 he can prove his proposition, according to his own method. And that, I 
 affirm, he can never do. Let hhn undertake it, and he will fail as signally 
 as he has on the other words — apolia and appollumi. 
 
 I will now show you that this word olethros, rendered ** destruction " in 
 the text, is explained by the Apostle Paul to mean punishment and tribula- 
 tion. 1 Cor. 5:5. " To deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of 
 the flesh (olethros tes sorkos) that the spirit may be saved in the day of the 
 Lord Jesus." Here Paul commands the Corinthian church "to deliver 
 such an one" (that is, the fornicator) " to Satan for the destruction of the 
 flesh." But was this '* destruction " inflicted? And if so, did it annihi- 
 late the man ? I answer, it was inflicted ; but instead of annihilating him, 
 it improved his condition — it made him better. For Paul writes in the sec- 
 ond epistle, telling them to restore him again to their fellowship : and 
 calling what had been inflicted upon him a punishment. " Sufficient for 
 such a man is the punishment, which was inflicted by the majority or many." 
 Here ,l the destruction of the flesh" (olethros tes sarkos) which was inflict- 
 ed upon this fornicator, and which, instead of annihilating him, made him 
 better, is defined by the Apostle Paul to mean ■" punishment." It was a 
 disciplinary chastisement or punishment which brought him to repentance 
 and reformation. And hence, when this was effected Paul wrote the church 
 to restore him. 
 
 Again, in the same connection in which this phrase " everlasting destruc- 
 tion " occurs, 2 Thess. 1: 6, the Apostle defines it to mean tribulation. — 
 " Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them 
 that trouble you ; and to you who are troubled, rest with us ; when the Lord 
 Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, 
 taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruc- 
 tion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." Let 
 it be noted now, that what the Apostle calls tribulation in the sixth verse of 
 this chapter, he calls everlasting destruction in the ninth. Hence it is not 
 annihilation, but conscious suffering or punishment as in the case of the 
 fornicator. And the passage is in perfect harmony with Matt. 25: 46. — 
 44 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment., but the righteous 
 into life eternal," 
 
 The punishment of the wicKed. then, is not everlasting non-existence, but 
 everlasting punishment of conscious suffering; away from the presence 
 of God, and the glories of Heaven, and the society of the blessed ; in hope- 
 less despair; in outer darkness, where there is weeping and wailing, and 
 gnashing of teeth ; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quench- 
 ed; where they shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets, 
 in the Kingdom of God, and themselves cast out. 
 
 " Oh ! wretched state of deep despair ! 
 
 To see my God remove, 
 And fix my doleful station where 
 
 I must not taste his love !" [ Time expired* 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 115 
 
 THIRD SPEECH OF ELD. GRANT. 
 
 Mi*. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 I will read the definition of the word olethros, found in 2 Thess. 1 : 9. 
 It is defined by Liddell and Seott, " death, destruction, loss of life," and 
 it remains to be proved that destruction in 2 Thess. 1 : 9, does not mean 
 loss of life. Paul uses the expression again, and says, i; Their end is de- 
 struction" Would death be the destruction of a man ? He says, " the 
 wages of sin is death.'" 
 
 Another word was introduced from Daniel, — " shame and everlasting 
 contempt. " The Hebrew word d'ra7i-dhn', here rendered shame, occurs 
 but once more in the Bible, which is in Isa. 66 : 24. " And they shall 
 go forth, and look upon the carcasess of the men that have transgressed 
 against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be 
 quenched ; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.'' Says Dr. Win- 
 tell, " it denotes a kind of spectacle, show or nausea," and is translated 
 * £ nausea" by Buxtorf, in his concordance. In the case of Arnold the 
 traitor, we speak of him in abhorrence. But it does not prove that he is 
 conscious of it, by any means. 
 
 My brother claims that hades is a place of punishment, but does not 
 tell us where it is. He says destruction of demons means going out of 
 men. That is a new definition ! 
 
 He says there is an analogy between the first and second death. That 
 is just what we claim. The first is " extinction of life," and so is the 
 second. 
 
 We come to the main point of his last remarks, which is the considera- 
 tion of degrees of punishment. He says that for one sin or many they 
 must have the same punishment, according to our position. With my 
 brother's view, they have eternal misery for one sin ; and can they have 
 it any longer for a thousand ? We do not find the doctrine of degrees 
 of punishment in the Bible, Mr. Chairman. All the passages quoted by 
 my brother fails, excepting one, and we will now look at that. Luke 12 : 
 47-48. " And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not 
 himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many 
 stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, 
 shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of 
 him shall be much required ; and to whom men have committed much, of 
 him they shall ask the more. Who are those that the Lord chastens ? 
 and where is it done ? Every son he loves, in this world. A minister 
 once said to me, I know what that passage means. I committed an error 
 many years ago and have suffered chastisement for it over since. They 
 are beaten with many stripes in this life. 
 
 We pass to illustrate the idea of degrees of punishment. Suppose a 
 man kills his neighbor in Seneca Falls ; and another man kills a thous- 
 and. We arrest, examine, condemn and execute both alike. Is the law 
 just ? According to my brother's idea, that man who has killed a thous- 
 and, should have a thousand times more torment than the other. As 
 soon as one man begins to torment another we call it heathenish. We do 
 
116 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 not practice such things in civilized countries, and yet my brother's theory 
 makes God torture the sinner eternally; God wishes us to be merciful, 
 because he is ; but the most merciful would not torment his fellow man 
 for one year before killing him. Paul says the wicked " are worthy of 
 death j" and when we kill a being, we do not torment him a while before 
 we take his life, neither do we think God does. 
 
 In reviewing our brother's remarks during the discussion, we find him 
 admitting that Adam and all his posterity are mortal. This being true, 
 as we have endeavored to prove, it follows that Satan uttered a lie when 
 he said, " Ye shall not surely die." We find no other passage which 
 teaches that man has an immortal spirit; and as Satan was a liar from the 
 beginning, the whole matter is settled, if we adhere to the Bible. My 
 brother says, death is not to die. Death is the mid of dying. When a 
 man is dying he is approaching a point where he will cease to live. The 
 wages of sin is not dying, but DEATH. We have shown by quotations 
 from the Fathers, that they did not believe in the doctrine of eternal 
 misery, but, like Paul, they taught that " the wages of sin is death.' 1 '' that 
 they were to be devoured like wood that is burned up. 
 
 My opponent says it is " no punishment to be put out of existence." — 
 He would have to reason with us till we are older than now, before we 
 we could be made to believe that death is no punishment. We hold that 
 eternal life in the coming kingdom is the highest possible reward ; and 
 that eternal death is the highest possible punishment ; because the sinner 
 lose all the righteous gain. 
 
 Why put a sinner where he cannot help but sin, and then punish him 
 for sinning by tormenting him eternally. Is not death or destruction a 
 punishment ? Paul answers, " the wages of sin is death." My brother 
 says it is eternal life in misery. 
 
 In conclusion, we would say, first, we have shown from many passages 
 in the Old and New Testaments, that the nature of future punishment is 
 expressed by such words as, "destroy, destruction, perish, devour, consume, 
 death, burn up, Sfc." These original words are defined, " to end" " to extir- 
 pate" u to blot out,'* u erase" "to destroy utterly," u to finish," " to annihi- 
 late" " to bring to nothing." Admitting, Mr. Chairman, that the punishment 
 is destruction, death, — as the Bible aflirins, we ask how it could be express- 
 ed, if not in the very words now employed ? We see but one way to 
 avoid our conclusion, which is to say perish does not mean perish, — de- 
 stroy does not mean destroy, and that death does not mean death, when 
 applied to the wicked, but to keep them alive. 
 
 Second. After showing the nature of punishment, that it is death. — 
 destruction ; we then brought positive Scripture to show that it is eter- 
 nal. Matt. 25 : 46. " And these shall go away into everlasting punish- 
 ment ; but the righteous into life eternal." 2 These. 1 : 9. " They shall 
 be punished with everlasting (or eternal) detstructiou/' The word ren- 
 dered punishment in Matt. 25 : 46, is defined, " to cut off" " excission," 
 " abscission." The sinner has broken the law, the penalty of which is 
 death ; hence justice says he must die. He is in great misery on account 
 of the approaching penalty, hence mercy says, let him die, — take his life. 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 
 
 117 
 
 — end his suffering. Consequently justice and mercy unite in the death 
 of the sinner. 
 
 Let us for a few moments look on the bright side of the subject: Ps. 
 37 : 22. " For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth ; and they 
 that be cursed of him shall be cut off."' 1 Prov. 21 : 21-22. " For the up- 
 right shall dwell in the laud, and the perfect shall remain in it. But the 
 wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be root- 
 ed out of it."' When they are rooted out, they do not come around the 
 city. They are without. No place is found for them. My brother will 
 not claim that the wicked are to be eternally surrounding the righteous 
 in the kingdom. All the thieves, robbers, murderers, (fee., will be cast 
 away and burned up. Prov. 10: 29-30. '-The way of the Lord is 
 strength to the upright; but destruction shall be to the workers of in- 
 iquity. The righteous shall never be removed ; but the wicked shall not 
 inhabit the earth.'' Ps. 37 : 9-11. "For evil doers shall be cat off; but 
 those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a 
 little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently con- 
 sider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth ; 
 and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace/' 2 Pet. 3: 13. 
 " Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a 
 new earthy wherein dwelleth righteousness.'' Now we begin to see some- 
 thing bright looming up. Rev. 21 : 1. " And I saw a new heaven and 
 a, new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away ; 
 and there was no more sea.'' Num. 1-1: 21. " But as truly as I live, all 
 the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.*' When the earth is 
 full of the glory of the Lord, where are the wicked ? As they are to be 
 punished upon the earth, their punishment either converts or destroys 
 them. The Bible says they are destroyed. Then follows Rev. 21 : 9-10. 
 * And they sung a new song, saying. Thou art worthy to take the book, 
 and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us 
 to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and 
 nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests; and we shall 
 reign on the earth." Next comes Rev. 5 : 13, to complete the picture. 
 " And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the 
 earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, 
 Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon 
 the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." At this time there 
 are none wailing in hades, gehenna, or tartarus ; but the wicked, with the 
 demons and the Devil, are blotted out of existence. The earth is then re- 
 stored to her Eden beauty and lovliness, the good alone being preserved, 
 and made immortal. There is no wailing of the damned, but ALL prais- 
 ing God. The whole earth is full of his gloiy. The Saints have taken 
 the Kingdom, under the whole Heaven, and as there is not an intimation 
 in the whole Bible that the wicked shall be punished anywhere else, than 
 upon this earth, where are they when ereruthing is praising God ? We 
 have shown that they are deadi Hence our proposition is sustained by 
 the Scriptures. — u The punishment of the wicked consists in the eternal 
 extinction of their being." 
 
118 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 THIRD SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON. 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentleman: 
 
 My opponent stiil confounds extinction of life with extinction of being. 
 Thanatos, (death,) according to Ms own definition, as well as that of all 
 the lexicons, means simply " extinction of life.''' And yet he relies on this 
 word to prove his proposition — that " the punishment of the wicked will 
 consist in the eteranal extinction of their being! This, certainly, is strange 
 logic ! If death is merely the extinction of life, it is not the extinction of 
 being, even of the body, to say nothing about the spirit. For if it were, 
 we could never see a corpse — the moment death took effect, the body would 
 disappear,— would be extinguished — would go into non-existence ; and 
 there would be no necessity for coffin or grave ; for there would be nothing 
 to put into them ! To say nothing about the spirit, the very fact that the 
 body is in existence after death has taken its effect, and needs to be 
 shrouded, coffined and buried, demonstrates to our senses that death is not 
 an extinction of being. This shows the utter shallowness and absurdity of 
 my opponents reasoning. 
 
 He has made quite an effort to prove that olethros means "extinction of 
 being." And well he might, for his whole argument depends upon it. It 
 i-s the only word rendered " destruction" that is qualified by the adjective 
 eternal, (aionios,) and hence the desperate necessity he is under to make 
 out that it means "extinction of being," in order to prove his proposition. 
 But he has utterly failed ; and, as a consequence, his whole theory falls to 
 the ground. 
 
 The word olethros occurs but four times in the Bible, and in every instance 
 it is used in the sense of conscious suffering, as the connection most clearly 
 shows. In 1 Cor. 5: 5 — it is applied to the "punishment" of a fornicator; 
 and, as I have already shown, instead of annihilating him, it made him 
 better — brought him to penitence and reformation. In the same connection, 
 where it is associated with aionios, and translated "everlasting destruction," 
 (2 TIipss. 1 : 6-9) it is defined by the Apostle to mean "■tribulation," 
 which is an element of conscious suffering, and incompatible with annihi- 
 lation. In 1 Thess. 5 : 3 — it is compared to the pains of child-birth. 
 "For when they shall say peace and safety, then sudden destruction 
 (olethros) cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child ; and 
 they shall not escape." In 1 Tim. 6 : 9 — it is defined by the phrase, " and 
 pierced themselves through with many sorrows ." These are all the instan- 
 ces in which the word occurs, and instead of sustaining my opponent's 
 theory, it is directly opposed to it. 
 
 He has noticed my proof from Dan. 12 : 2 — "And many that sleep in 
 the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to 
 shame and everlasting contempt." I claimed that the literal rendering of 
 this passage from the Septuagint is "shame and ignominy eternal." But 
 he contends that it is " eternal abhorrence," and quotes some authority on 
 the subject. Now, I should like to know who it is that abhors. Can non- 
 entities abhor ? or is it Ood who abhors non-entities ? Strange that He 
 should eternally abhor that which has no existence ! But the passage 
 plainly teaches that the conscious emotion of "shame and ignominy" will 
 exist in the minds of the wicked eternally. 
 
 I showed that, according to my opponent's theory, there can be no 
 degrees of punishment. But to retaliate, he asks how can there be any 
 upon my hypothesis? If all are punished eternally, how can some be 
 
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. 119 
 
 punished more than others ? I answer, they can punished with greater 
 severity. It is not a matter of time, but of intensity. Some may suffer 
 more during the same period than others ; and some may suffer more during 
 a briej space, than others will in a long period of time. Such is the case 
 in this world. Here, for example, are two persons of equal ages; but one 
 has suffered ten times as much as the other. And here, again, are two 
 persons of unequal ages, and the younger of them has saffered more than 
 the older. Some persons experience more pain and suffering during a few 
 weeks or months than others do in a whole life-time. Hence, according to 
 my position, there can be degrees of punishment ; but according to the 
 theory of my opponent, there cannot be : it is impossible : there are no 
 degrees in annihilation ! My opponeut has virtually admitted this by deny- 
 ing that the Scriptures teach degrees of punishment. He never would 
 deny this if he could reconcile the doctrine with his theory. But finding 
 himself unable to reconcile it with his theory, he makes a clear sweep of 
 the whole matter by denying in positive terms that the Bible teaches 
 degrees of punishment. But this is rather a daring experiment ! What 
 will he do with such passages as these : M Who will render to every man 
 according to his works." Are there' no degrees in works ? Do not some 
 work harder, more faithfully, dilligently, than others ? And, on the other 
 hand, do not some serve sin with greater diligence and assiduity than 
 others ? and are they not, consequently, more guilty and deserving of 
 greater punishment? It violates all ideas of justice — it is contrary to 
 Scripture, reason and common sense — that the most guilty and the least 
 guilty should be punished alike. No man in his right mind can believe it. 
 Nothing but the desperate necessity of supporting a theory could induce 
 any man to take such a position. It contradicts the plainest teachings of 
 the scripture. '• He that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he 
 hath done ; and there is no respect of persons with God.'' " For we must 
 all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive 
 for the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be 
 good or bad." " And after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest 
 up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous 
 judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his works." — 
 "Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give to every man 
 as his works shall be found." These scriptures plainly teach the doctrine 
 of degrees of punishment, and hence my opponent's position cannot be true ; 
 for by his own admission there are no degrees in annihilation. Nay, more. 
 I have proved beyond all contradiction that there is no punishment in an- 
 nihilation ; and can there be degrees of punishment in that which contains 
 no punishment at all 1 It is impossible. 
 
 But the great mistake of my opponent, and the one that lies at the foun- 
 dation of all his reasoning, and vitiates his whole theory, is confounding 
 life and existence. These are by no means synonymous. The eternal 
 life of the righteous is not existence : for they exist before they have it; 
 and all who are not the children of God exist without it. The eternal life 
 of the righteous is conscious enjoyment — it embraces the happiness of the 
 future state — it is the sum of the bliss of Heaven. The eternal punishment 
 of the wicked — which is the very opposite — is not non-existence ; it is con- 
 scious suffering— it embraces all the wretchedness of the future state — it is 
 the sum of the misery of Hell. It will be in " everlasting fire " — in "outer 
 darkness, where there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, 
 where they shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the 
 
120 DISCISSION ON 
 
 Kingdom of God and they themselves thrust out." It will be in the "fire 
 that never shall be quenched " — the " everlasting fire prepared for the dev- 
 il and his angels " — " where their worm, dicthnot and the fire is not quench- 
 ed." It will consist in "ignominy and shamo eternal " — in " weeping and 
 wailing and gnashing of teeth" — in "seeing Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God, and they themselves cast out" 
 — in thegnawings of remorse and a guilty conscience, fitly represented by 
 the " worm that dieth not, and the fire that never shall he quenched." Ac- 
 cording to Paul it will consist in " Indignation, Wrath, Tribulation, 
 Anguish." And these will come M upon evpry soul of man that doeth evil, 
 of the Jew first and also of the Gentile." When ? " In the day when God 
 will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according" to my gospel." — 
 These are the four elements of the punishment of the wicked — embracing 
 all the details of conscious suffering , and my opponent can never reconcile 
 them with his theory of non-existence. They are altogether incompatible 
 with such a position. 
 
 My opponent ha3 failed to redeem his promise, to show " that death is the 
 highest kind of punishment." He has eves failed to «how that it is any 
 kind of punishment except what is endured in anticipation, while, the being 
 is yet conscious. But that he has nothicg to do with. " The punishment," 
 according to his own showing, " dors not begin till the pinner is dead." — 
 And wheu he is dead he is annihilated : therefore he eaa haven* punishment. 
 If this is not a logical conclusion from his premises, I know not what hs 
 logical. 
 
 But I am done with the argument. I have shown in opposition to my 
 opponent's theory that the punishment of the wicked will consist in eternal 
 conscious suffering. I have shown you the wicked in conscious misery, after 
 my opponent has them annihilated — after the old earth is burnt up, and tho 
 g^henna fire in which they are " utterly consumed " has become extinct — 
 " weeping, and wailing, and gnashing their teeth, and seeing Abraham. 
 Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God, and they 
 themselves thrust out." I have shown you the wicked—the "dogs, and the 
 sorcerers, and the idolaters, and the whoremougers, and the murderers, and 
 whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" — outside of the New Jerusalem after 
 they are all annihilated according to my opponent. Hence his position 
 must be false ; for it is in point-blank opposition to these facts. [Here the 
 President notified Mr. Clayton that his time had expired. Mr. Clayton then 
 said :] The discussion is now closed. I have endeavored in my part of it 
 to be governed by the word of God ; and have spoken my honest sentiments, 
 as I expect to give account in the day of judgment. I thank you, my 
 friends, for your kind attention, and hope that we may all meet in Heaven- 
 
 I now move a rote of thanks to Judge Palmer for the able manner in 
 which he has presided over this discussion. 
 
 Mr. Grant. — I second the motion. 
 
 The motion was then put and adopted unanimously, when the meeting 
 
 adjourned. 
 
 H 152 82 
 

 »«•_»* 
 
 
 o T///! 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ■* ^ 
 
 
 
 * >fr & Sj$i 
 
 & «.»■• yv <, oeacidified using the Bookkeeper process.. 
 
 «** '.°^h!*,- Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 1 
 
 *^» Vi, . ^ *&mZ%£* A % ^5SW& * Treatment Date: August 2005 
 
 %.,-< 
 
 ^ 
 
 r oK 
 
 AT ^*» *••»♦''* *0' ■ ,$> Cranberry Township, PA 1606& 
 
 V .»lilf* -«V A.0 »*'•-' > V - (724)779-2111 
 
 ,0" 
 
 Treatment Date: August : 
 
 PreservationTechnologies., 
 
 a worId leader in paper preservation I 
 
 111 Thomson Park Drive 
 \ 
 

 ♦♦">