MR. BRADLAUGH: - What does this principle in debate mean? Does it mean that I am to measure out beforehand, such things that I know my opponent can answer? If it means that, it is the veriest nonsense and trash. If my opponent does not think nine nights sufficient for the purposes of the debate, for the consideration of questions that must necessarily arise, why did he enter into the debate at all?

Am I then to be told that I am utterly incorrect in saying, that damnation is taught by the Church of England as resting on all mankind in consequence of Adam's sin, unless they come to Jesus? Mr. King says that's wrong. I say 'tis right. And I say it on the strength of the Article in the Church of England Prayer Book: - "They also are to be had accursed, that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the Law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of nature, for Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved." I do not know what is the use of discussing matters of this kind, unless some sort of attention is paid to the argument.

How did he answer the question as to "faith alone" being only named to be refuted or repudiated? He did not give a fair or clear construction of the passage. On the contrary, he said something about his having heard some one speak about Mr. Bradlaugh being in a certain place, and it was not to be presumed that I was there "alone." But that was not a fair representation of the argument I gave him. Even now he has not answered my question, whether he believes in eternal torment being part and parcel of Christianity. [Laughter]. He has not told us, and I will know before I am done with the debate. [Applause].

Nor has he told us how much of the Old Testament he rejects, and how much he accepts, and what part is to be our guide. Nor has he said one word about the "particular document," or that he had made a blunder in referring to it. He has made an extraordinary statement, however. He read the Scriptural assertion "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." And he then told us that Christ told His disciples to tarry. I will take my opponent to an authority on the matter, and see if he is correct. Now neither Mark nor Luke say anything about tarrying. In John 21:22, we read, "Jesus saith unto him (Peter), If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee. Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto them, He shall not die, but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" Our friend audaciously characterized me a scrap doctor, but he seems to practice the trick to a remarkable extent himself.

But stranger yet. What are we to believe? Not the Gospels? Not the Epistles? Then I want to know what Christians are to believe. "Oh," he says "turn to 1 Cor. 15 and you will find the matter made clear to you." And to this chapter I turn. I was certainly much astonished that a man who should have known better should leave right off in the middle of a sentence. This is what you are required to believe "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel, which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand: By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. And that he was seen of Cephas, then one of the twelve: And that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."

Now I want to know what Scriptures you are to believe in? I want to know what Scriptures Paul referred to, and where they are. What persons are required to believe in them, and what persons are not required to believe in them? How are we to learn about Jesus Christ at all without the Gospels and the Epistles? First our friend pitches overboard the Old Testament, then takes part of it, then he follows up by heaving over the Gospels.

But he says that it is a stale trick of a clever infidel to put more questions to him than he can answer in nine nights. Why if he believes in the New Testament he should have been prepared for the stale tricks.

But I have to complain much more. Mr. King told you of justification by faith alone, that the declaration that man was not justified by works applied to the deeds of the law, and not to ordinary works. Why if he had read Rom. 4:4-5, he would have found a different doctrine. "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." My opponent not only did not trouble himself to answer the points I brought forward, but conveniently forgets them, and proceeds to reply to matters I did not deal with.

Let us look at the position we are now in. We are referred to Rom. 10:9, as putting the matter clear to you, and permit me to ask, why if one portion of the Book is directly opposed to another it is any sort of evidence in its favour? For at the most, giving the greatest scope to what my opponent puts, it will only come to that. Permit me to ask him in regard to the passage in Rom. 10:9, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved;" what belief he has in that passage.

I would like him to state when he rises again if he believes that Christ was three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, and that He was raised from the dead by God, and to make apparent to me the text upon which his faith, in that doctrine, is founded. But he will in all likelihood characterize it as a "stale trick," but how for one moment could I practice such tricks before an intelligent audience? What becomes of the professedly practised debater - the man of learning - the man who attempted to confute Mr. Holyoake - the challenger of this debate - making the condition, that I am to come here day by day without bread and cheese, except so far as I provide out of my own pocket, if he is not prepared with at least some semblance of an argument?

I insist that Mr. King, when he rises, state deliberately the Scriptures he refers to - what Scriptures Christians are required to believe, and whether they are to believe or disbelieve in the Epistles. If not, why not? Let us have no shuffling about - no playing at shuttle-cock and battle-dore from the Old Testament to the New - now repudiating, and now taking up. [Applause]. Let him substantiate his argument after a legitimate fashion.

What was his argument on faith? I take Abraham. He instanced Abraham in offering up his son Isaac through faith. Now, let us see what is Abraham's faith. God tempted Abraham to offer up his son Isaac for a burnt offering. And when they were journeying to the place chosen by God for the sacrifice, Isaac, who seemed to be quite ignorant that he was set down to be murdered, asked his father, "Where is a lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering; so they went both of them together." If Abraham knew that God would provide a lamb the whole thing is a sham, and if God would not provide a lamb, Abraham induced his son to go out and be killed. [Applause]. There is the illustration Mr. King himself gave.

I will not complain further, not having time, as to his shifting from one argument to another, and from one text to another, but leave the printed debate to speak for itself. But when Secularists come to read it they will perceive that notwithstanding my opponent was repeatedly asked, he declined to give his views on eternal torments - that he did not talk of a "particular document," although asked again and again - that he quoted Greek in show of learning - that he shuffled from the Old Testament to the New, backwards and forwards, taking such portions as suited himself - that he was the commonest trickster in debate, making charges against a man which he can't substantiate, and exhibiting some little indignation and warmth when he is found wandering away from the truth in this discussion.

He has not informed me whether I represented the atonement theory correctly, or whether those who believe in Jesus will be saved, or whether those who believe in the Bible will be saved. If so, is there any authority for that in the Book. Upon what Scriptures do Christians take their stand for salvation, and how is it that there are so many contradictions.

Then I put it further - and more distinctly - are Christians required to believe that God is Christ? What is Christ? Does it mean God or man? If God, why did he deem Himself forsaken by Himself. Does it mean man? If man, was he liable to error? Was it part God, and part man? If part God, and part man, was it possible for Him to deem Himself part forsaken? My friend will doubtless pretend that I put these questions in the way of a trick; you are bound to answer, and if you are not capable for such infidel tricks you ought never to have put down the gauntlet for the infidel to take up. [Applause].

MR. KING:- The question has been put, "What Scriptures did Paul refer to?" Unquestionably to the Jewish Scriptures. [Hear, hear]. "Does Mr. King believe that Christ was three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth?" Yes, he does, but he does not believe Mr. Bradlaugh's assertion, that he went into the grave on Friday night. He repeats what he affirmed in Birmingham some years ago. Then I rose to ask for evidence that Jesus went into the grave on Friday night. I listened to my opponent's reply then, and called for proofs, but was not allowed to make any comment thereupon.

He next tells us, that surely I have time enough in nine nights to answer all the questions and alleged discrepancies he crowds into this one subject allotted to tonight and last night. I am not at liberty to refer to them on subsequent nights, when other subjects are to be discussed. This subject, and his questions and assumed contradictions, are confined to last evening and to this - tomorrow night we shall have an entirely different subject, and, therefore, he is simply deluding the audience by his cry about nine nights for answering the questions of these two nights.

Then we are asked, whether we are to believe the Gospels as Christianity? What are we to believe as Christianity? He tells you, that Mr. King says we should believe, as Christianity, only the passages he had quoted with regard to Christ. I have told you nothing of the sort. I have not been talking to you about what we believe as Christianity, but upon what those who are not Christians are required to believe in order to be saved, in order to obtain pardon, and in order to introduction into the Church and Family of God.

The Saviour commissioned his apostles, and what did He tell them to do? To go and teach (or disciple) all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Now in executing that commission, they made disciples and taught them, and they learned the things taught, and abided therein. As Christ's disciples and members of Christ's Church. What had the apostles to do subsequently? To teach them all things that Christ had commanded. This after teaching them was not to make them Christians, but more fully to instruct them in things of Christ and of God; and the simple question before us, is not what we are to believe as Christians, but what are the things laid down as absolutely necessary to believe to obtain pardon and adoption, which in the commission given to the apostles when told by Christ to go forth and proclaim the Gospel, is called salvation.

We have had the doctrine of the atonement pressed upon our attention, and also that of future punishment. I have only time briefly to say a word upon one of these, and whichever I take, my opponent will come down with a complaint that I did not take the other. But as he has most frequently called for information as to future punishment we can very fairly present a few thoughts on that topic. He, however, needed not to have wasted his time, and yours, in reiterated demands for my views. His duty was to tell you what is the New Testament teaching upon future punishment, and it would then have been my duty to deny his statement or admit it. It is as much his business as it is mine to unfold the thing. The reiterated demand for my opinion on the nature of future punishment then is uncalled for, and changes the question under discussion; which is not "What is Mr. King's belief in reference to eternal burning?" but "What is Christianity?" But I believe all that Christ and His apostles say upon the subject, and if I did not so believe, I should (having defined Christianity to be that whole doctrine taught by Christ and His apostles) be bound in this discussion, to accept all they teach thereon. Of course I am not bound to take every text as a literal statement of the case - some texts are figurative, and others are not. Of course if it suit my opponent to insist that such verses as Mark 9:44 are to be taken in their strict literality, and that, consequently, human bodies are to burn for ever in literal fire without being consumed, and that literal worms are to feed for ever upon those burning carcasses without eating them up, and without being themselves burnt up and destroyed, he talks sheer nonsense. If he say that the text means not that the bodies will burn for ever without being consumed, but that the souls will continue to be tormented by literal fire after their bodies are burned to ashes; and that literal worms will eat the spirit and not the flesh, then he only repeats the nonsense in another form.

I demand that these texts be interpreted according to the obvious meaning of similar sayings in other parts of the Bible; as in Isaiah 34:10, where of a certain doomed country it is said, "That the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched, night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever." As also in Jude 7, where the writer describes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as "set forth" for an example, suffering vengeance of eternal life. Not that the cities had continued burning for centuries, and until then, but that their destruction was complete, their restoration never to be effected, and the example of their punishment enduring.

Precisely after this manner did Victor Hugo write, a few days back, when in appealing to the German people to stop the war and save Paris, he said, "Burn our edifices - these are only our bones: their smoke will assume shape and will rise even to heaven, and there it will be seen, for ever on the horizon of nations." Now did he mean to say that the houses of Paris are literally the bones of Frenchmen, and that if those bone-houses were burned by the Germans the literal smoke thereof would be visible through all eternity? What ridicule would you not cast upon the man who would seriously tell you that he so understood it? If then we can distinguish between the figurative and literal in the address of Hugo, why can we not discriminate in like manner when we deal with the words of Christ, which come to us from a time and country abounding in metaphor?

Now it is well known that men of piety, merit, and mark in the leading orthodox denominations clearly see and avow the figurative in the texts under notice and, therefore, teach that the fire will burn out and the bodies be consumed, in agreement with various Old and New Testament allusions to the punishment of the wicked as - They shall melt like wax - burn like tow - consume like thorns - burn up like trees, chaff, tares, etc. Now, I say, that men of repute and standing teaching thus are found, not as outcasts from orthodox society, but in the most popular denominations: and I say that this teaching is not of today, nor got up to dodge modern infidels, but that it comes to us from of old, and is found in the earliest writings of Christians of which we have any information.

The persons who thus hold are divided in opinion on one point; some understand that with the destruction of the body the whole being will ease to exist, but others of them understand that the spirit, or soul, will continue to suffer, not in fire, but such further punishment as God in justice and in mercy shall inflict. Now if either of these final results be admitted by my opponent, as the doctrine of Christ, I defend it as being just and good, and perfectly compatible with that admitted principle, which demands that that shall be done, and declares that best, which secures the greatest good to the greatest number. I am, therefore, prepared to defend eternal punishment, even eternal conscious punishment; but I am not prepared to admit that that punishment will consist of torment by eternal fire, that will for ever burn and always torment, yet never consume that which is committed to it.

We may now have time for a remark or two on the other great matter - I mean the atonement, though it has scarcely come before us under that designation, the question having rather been concerning the death of Christ. The question has been put, "Does Christ's death save all men from the punishment consequent on Adam's sin or does it save believers only?" First I reply - it supplies a result beneficial to all the descendants of Adam. God can forgive now that the death of Christ stands out - God can now forgive without affording room for the sinner to conclude that he may henceforth sin with impunity.

I say that this one great difficulty in the way of bestowing pardon is met with the death of Christ: - namely, the difficulty of pardoning without encouraging crime. I have not the slightest doubt but that when a strong appeal was made to our Government to pardon certain Fenian convicts, the Government would have been better pleased to pardon them than not, but they could not see how it could be done without encouraging further crime and repetition of the wrong-doing. Now in the death of Christ we see at least this difficulty met in the Divine dealing with the sinner.

Therefore, I say, it supplies a result beneficial to all the descendants of Adam; more than that, the one universal result of Adam's sin is met, and that for the whole of the human family. We read in Rom. 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Thus you find that one transgression brings the whole of the descendants of Adam into the grave, but you are also distinctly told, that in consequence of the righteousness of one there comes a justification unto life upon all those who enter the grave in consequence of Adam's transgression.

But that justification of life is from death and the grave merely, leaving each resurrected one to be judged in regard to his own deeds and condemned or blessed according to the deeds done in his own body, whether good or evil. Thus all who die by reason of connection with Adam and in consequence of his sin, are restored to life by reason of the work of Christ, and, therefore, we have a direct and universal benefit from the death of Christ.