DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF The State of the Dead, AND PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED; BETWEEN ELDER W. W. CLAYTON, OF AUBURN, N. Y, Miles AND ELDER M. GRANT, OF BOSTON, MASS. On the Evenings of December 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, A. D., 1859, AT UNION HALL, IN SENECA FALLS. PHONOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY FRED. L. MANNING, WATERLOO, N. Y., AND REVISED BY THE PARTIES. SENECA FALLS, N. Y.: PUBLISHED BY THOMAS G. NEWMAN. 1860. DISCUSSION. MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 5, 1859. PPOPOSITION." When man dies, his spirit remains in a conscious state, separate from the body, until the resurrection." Elder CLAYTON affirms-Elder GRANT denies. OPENING SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON. Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am extremely happy, in the good providence of God, to be present with you on this occasion. It 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, I met in this Hall and upon this platform, Mr. Bywater, 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. Bywater'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 attribuited 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 acknowledged 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 acknowledged 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 proposition; while it will be the duty of my opponent to show that these arguments are not valid that they are irrelevant, impertinent, sophistical, or fallacious; and therefore, that they do not sustain my proposition. |