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 :

"If

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: 38, 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 way 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: these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after 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 pit 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? 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 weapons 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."

66

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 itself;" 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!!

SECOND SPEECH OF ELD. CLAYTON

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have here a standard Greek Lexicon-Robinsons-and I will read his

definition of hades. He says: "In the New Testament, hades 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 evident from the testimony of Peter, who informs us that "God spared not the angels that sinned; but cast them down to Tartarus." If no such place exists, then Peter did not tell the truth. Here I rest the whole matter. The statement of Robinson of the opinion of the Jews respecting hades agrees substantially with that of Josephus, already referred to; and I affirm that the Saviour endorsed it by using the word in its common 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 hypothesis of the non-existence of spirits. Death with them was an eternal extinction of being. When a man died, according 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 now, but in relation to his identity between death and the resurrection.

MR. CLAYTON, turning to Mr. Grant, asked. ty then, sir?

What will be your identi

MR. GRANT replied, I shall be 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 "tabernacle" is again referred to. I think you must understand the subject after the illustration the gentleman gave. It was very simple.

tence.

But unfortunately he got Peter out of his body in the middle of his senHe 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 gentleman'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 ancient 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 connection 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 human 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? 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 restored to the body again. The resurrection is the resurrection of the body; and hence it is said in Matt. 27; 52, "Many of the bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of their graves after his resurreetion, 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 a 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 tormented in that flame. My friend contends that hades is a state of entire unconsciousness; 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

som.

And the unconscious rich man cried, and said, unconscious father Abraham have mercy on me, (Laughter, and applause) and send unconscious Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his unconscious finger in water, and cool my unconscious tongue; for I am tormented in this state of unconsciousnes. But unconscious Abraham said, unconscious son, remember 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 they pass from your grave to ours who would come from thence."

We come now to the gentleman's oft repeated text, "The dead know not anything." Eccl. 9: 5. "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.'

"This passage is the gospel of Materialists-the grand fundamental 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 God. It is to him expressive of the most transcendently sublime truth that can possibly meet the conceptions of mortal intelligence. In the purposes of Materialism, this proposition is the grand radiating centre to which all other truths in the great system of God's moral 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. Well may its advocates be fearful of the result of a faithful and candid examination of this text. Let us now proceed to a fair and critical examination of the passage. The phrase "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 likewise be applied to the whole verse. Hence, 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 the resurrection of the dead. The proposition, "neither have they (the dead) any more a reward," taken without any qualification, is as pointed a denial 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: 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

"I

thou rememberest no more; and they are cut off from thy hand." Again, in Job 7: 9. "As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up NO MORE." Now, if this language be taken without qualification, then, 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 my 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 sun;" that is, says the Materialist," the dead have no more a reward forever under the sun." So we say, also, the dead “know 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 anything," be interpreted without any reference whatever to "the land of the living," yet it by no means proves that the dead are absolutely destitute of all knowledge. For I assert fearlessly that by 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; but I hope its demonstration may lead him to review his position, and to abandon the pernicious error which he has, honestly no doubt, but unfortunately embraced. Let us, then, appeal to the word of God. 2 Sam. 15: 11.How readest thou? "And with Absolom went 200 men out of Jerusalem, 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 be 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," means unconsciousness when applied to the dead, it must also, according to the dictates of reason and common sense, have the same signification when applied to the living.—

--