MR. GRANT.-My Opponent left out the words "or breath" he quoted the passage.

we".

every time 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 MR. 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 confident, 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 absent, 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 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 showed 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 always in remembrance. Here 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

and Peter, call the "I" and the "we" in the tabernacle. There is, therefore, 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?" I answer, no-I did not 13 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.-"Father into thy hands I commend my spirit;" and Acts 7: 55."They stoned Stephen calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit;" I will now introduce James 2: 26- For as the body without 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, an 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 manner, much less by 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 splendid 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, "We have heard out of the law, that Christ abideth 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 Cæsarea Philippi, as recorded in Matt. 16: 17, we 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.

R

A

took him and began to rebuke him, 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 visions 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 supposed that if Jesus of Nazareth was the true 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 proceeded so far with his execution as to nail him to the 66 cross, they passed by 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 kingdom 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 kingdom 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 advance 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

mation on the subject, should have had an idea of the kingdom, far in advance 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 follows, 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 manner 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 remember 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. "Verily 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. "Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." [Time expired.]

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 tonight. 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 building 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, 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, 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, &c. Peter says :-"The elements shall melt with fervent heat;"- แ 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 pieces, 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 clothing ourselves with that heavenly habitation," in which David says he shall dwell.

never

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.