MR. BRADLAUGH: - That is very pretty, and would have been prettier if you had given us the text that bears that construction.

MR. KING: - Romans 5:18.

MR. BRADLAUGH: - Then it will not bear the construction put upon it. The passage says - "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;" and there is nothing said about it being limited from the grave merely, leaving them to be judged then by their deeds.

I'll follow you step by step now in the speech which you have delivered. You say that when 1 Cor. 15:3-4, was quoted, Paul spoke of the scriptures of the Jews. But in what Jewish Scripture is it recorded that Christ died for our sins? In what that he would rise again on the third day? Where is it - in which one of the Scriptures of the Old Testament? In what part of the Jewish Scriptures is there any such record given? Why, there is no such statement, that I am aware of, in any one of them. There is a statement in which what has happened to Christ is recorded, and that is all, and if it is not in the Jewish Scripture it must be in some other.

He told you that he does believe that Jesus was three days and nights in the grave; that it is not true, as the Bible says, that he was buried on Friday night. Well I think it is, and I'll refer you again to Mark 15:42, - "And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus." The Jewish Sabbath is, and always has been, Saturday, so that the day before the Sabbath was Friday, and it was on the eve of that day that Joseph craved for the body of Jesus. And it must have been late in the evening, because after that Joseph "brought fine linen and spices."

And now when did Jesus rise from the grave? Take Matt. 28:1 - "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." So that they came sometime before the Saturday night was completely over, and it began to dawn on the Sunday morning; and when they came the body was out of the grave. The body was buried sometime on Friday, and was out sometime before the Saturday was complete: then I ask Mr. King, where are his three days and nights? If they exist I should be glad to have them, and I will not trouble Mr. King to say it was not true that Jesus was buried late on Friday evening.

Then come the declaration as to future punishment, and he set up a most extraordinary doctrine. He said it was not for him but for Mr. Bradlaugh to tell what the gospel taught. I thought the question for discussion was "What is Christianity?" and that he opened it last night. I thought he professed to explain Christian teaching to you, and that at least I was to ascertain from him his supposition as to what Christianity was. I am quite willing, and have not shown myself unwilling, to supplement this, and in fact, Mr. King grumbled because I had given him too much, though now be complains that I have not told you enough. He said it wasn't his business. He says that if Mr. Bradlaugh meant that the verses in Mark 9 are literally true, than that is all stuff and nonsense.

Well, if that is his comment on the Bible, I will read the words to you which he did not - (Mark 9:42,48.) - "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than have two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it is better for thee to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mr. King says it does not literally mean fire and burning. Well, let us test it. Take Matthew 13:41,42 - "The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:49,50 - "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them, into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 25:41 - "Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand: Depart from me, yet cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

Now, our friend, if I venture to tell you that that means everlasting fire, says it is stuff and nonsense: that is Mr. King's commentary on the Scripture. He was willing to admit that it meant eternal punishment - conscious punishment, but where was his authority for twisting the text in that fashion? Is it what he called an "official," or is it an "un-official" saying. If it does not mean everlasting fire, if there is no such thing as a burning lake prepared by the devil and his angels, if there is to be no weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, then all I can say is that the bulk of the teachings of the Church have been utterly wrong. [Hear, hear].

He says there are men of mark in the Church who do not believe this. Yes, there are infidels in the Church, and if Mr. Bradlaugh may not quote them, why should Mr. King? We have men of mark as good as your men of mark, but our men do not quibble about it, but go into the matter boldly and honestly, and don't complain of injustice because they have more forced out of them than they like. And such are the men one respects.

I urge that the authorized version does teach eternal torments by fire that shall never be quenched, - and in his last speech he did not think it right or proper to pretend that there was some other version that he believed in, for all he did was to quote from Victor Hugo, who is a poet, a novelist, and a romanticist, and Mr. King says you must try the words of Jesus by the same canon of criticism that you would judge the writings of Victor Hugo, George Augustus Sala, Balzac, or any other author. I am content with that; I don't want to try them by any other standard, but just as you would believe Balzac, just as you would Victor Hugo's "Travellers of the Sea." I am quite content.

But Mr. King has not told us how much of the Old Testament he agrees with, nor accounted for the "particular document," nor said like a man that he had made a mistake in referring to it; and I do object that he should have introduced this subject in the early stage of the debate, and left it to me to deal with in my last speech, reminding you that these things are not to be gone on with afterwards.

He says that I have been guilty of a trick in telling you that he has nine nights of debate in which to cover his questions. Why, he himself fixed and allotted out the questions and how they were to be discussed. I haven't meddled with it, and if he has not time sufficient, if he did not think he could answer in the time, then he should not have signed the conditions for two nights' debate at all, but should have taken the time he thought sufficient to enable him to answer them properly. I believe that I never in the whole course of my debating met with anything more contemptible as a pretence for avoiding argument on the other side than that addressed to us now.

Let us, however, see what is our position by the light thrown upon the question of atonement. He says one great want is met in the death of Christ - it secures salvation from the one universal result of Adam's sin. But I thought it was just now contended that that one universal result was a condemnation on those who were not saved by Jesus. If there was one result then Jesus supplies the want, but if not then he does not supply the want, for one universal result does not accrue. There our friend has answered himself.

Although I read to him an Article from the Prayer Book of the Church of England, he has not the manliness to admit that he was in the wrong in saying that the doctrine is not taught by any church. He cannot say this is one of the points crowded in, because I'll make him a present of all the others, and ask him to deal with this, and say whether he does or does not represent the orthodox Christians in this debate.

As the two nights' debate on "What is Christianity?" are drawing to a close, let us look at the position we are in. In my speeches I have gone close to the Bible. The complaint is that I have gone too close, and that there was no time to answer. Our friend went to the National Reformer, and everywhere except to the subject in hand; and then he has the audacity to say that I ought to have told you more, when I gave him too much. Then he said that I had no right to press him, but that I ought to have given the information myself. If this is not the veriest jugglery of debate, I don't know what is.

If he is heterodox and does not believe, how far can he defend religion? What would be said of me if I made pretence of defending that in which I had no faith and for which I had no respect? I ask you to deal with the question as I have put it. I have taken the whole question and put it before you. I have answered every position our friend has taken against me, and the only complaint is that I have introduced more things than he could answer. My time is up. I must close by telling you, that if you are to judge Christianity by the explanations our friend has given, you are more likely to be damned than saved. [Applause].

MR. KING: - Almost the last appeal was as to whether Mr. Bradlaugh had rightly construed an Article of the Church of England. I repeat he has not - I repeat that the Articles which he has read to us do not set forth what he affirmed. They do not declare that every person who does not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ will endure eternal damnation. They do intimate that all the human family are under the wrath of God, and that there can only be deliverance through Christ, and that is what I have been telling you. I am, thus far, perfectly in harmony with those articles. They do not teach that without faith in Christ, all the race of men must perish.

The Church of England does not teach infant damnation, which it must teach if Mr. Bradlaugh's interpretation of the Articles is correct. The Church of England does not teach that every one of Adam's family dying before they are able to know Christ shall go to the eternal perdition. It is not the doctrine either of the Articles or of the preachers.

Then Mr. Bradlaugh says I have intimated, that if he said that the language means literal or everlasting fire it is all stuff and nonsense. I said nothing of the sort. But he makes a great many erroneous statements of this kind. What I said I have here in writing, and you will have it in the report. I said, "If he tells us that these words mean that the bodies will be burning for ever in flame and not be consumed, that worms will be for ever eating them up and never finish them, that then he talks nonsense." [Applause]. That is what I said, and the statement is very different to the utterly incorrect paraphrase of it by Mr. Bradlaugh.

What I have demanded in the case is simply this - that he interpret the language the Saviour uses according to other occurrences of the same or similar phrases in other parts of the Bible where the attending circumstances demonstrate the sense, and I referred to Isaiah 34:10. There we read 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." Now, when you refer to that country you will not find the fire always burning, and the smoke thus going up, and you will readily recognise a similar meaning in similar instances.

I have not said that the fire spoken of by the Saviour is not literal fire. Nor do I believe that the sentence of the judgment day will be carried without literal fire. But I objected to bodies ever burning without being consumed and to souls tormented by literal fire. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire, and that fire is termed eternal fire, but did the writer of the Epistle mean those to whom he wrote to understand that that fire would be for ever burning? The eternality, if rightly interpreted, has reference to the effects produced; eternal as would be the smoke of the burning of Paris as described by Victor Hugo.

Now, as I have put the matter, it does not deny the eternality of the punishment of the wicked; it does not deny that the suffering will be eternal; it denies simply the eternal burning. That part of the sentence which is carried out by fire will be "a consuming of those who are subjected to it, root and branch; they shall be burnt up as stubble;" and, then, whatever follows will be in accordance with the unerring justice of God, who will render to every one according to his deeds.

There is one matter to which Mr. Bradlaugh has referred again and again, or I should not have noticed it - I mean this business of "starving out," which seems to afflict him very much. Now, really, I have no desire to see Mr. Bradlaugh starve, and I have only placed him (in this "starving business") in the same boat with myself. [Cries of "No" and "Yes"].

I am speaking now, to many persons before whom I made the statement referred to, when lecturing in this Hall. I told the people that there would be a collection after the lecture, and I said to the Secularists "Don't you give anything, because it will go to support the propagation of what you disapprove and, therefore, ought not to support." I added, on the other hand, let the Christians support their own advocates. I said to the believers, "Don't you give anything by way of payment to the Secularist lecturers; as Christians support their preachers let Secularists support theirs. If they are so numerous (active and passive) surely," I said, "they are able to support the half dozen persons who, in this country, are looking to them for support." Mr. Bradlaugh ought to feel obliged to me on that account. [Hear, hear, and laughter].

What I said in effect, and what I repeat now, is this - If the Secularists will not support their own men then let them be starved out of the field as lecturers, so far as the pence of Christians are concerned. I have previously cautioned Christians against paying anything to unbelievers, and, on the other hand, I said it was as much the duty and policy of Atheists to allow Christian advocates to be starved out rather than contribute to keep them at work in advocating what they consider error. That is the whole secret of our starving business, and I hope you will act upon it on all occasions. [Hear, hear].

Then with regard to Christ, and the three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth. Mr. Bradlaugh said that He was put into the grave on Friday night, and as he turned to the Book I was waiting to hear him read something about Friday, but of course he did not. I heard him read something about the Sabbath, and I heard him infer that the day before the Sabbath was Friday. He said it must be so, because the Sabbath was Saturday. Well, that is very conclusive - that is if the facts are so - if Saturday was the Sabbath the day before must be Friday, there can be no doubt. But I deny that that Sabbath must have been a Saturday, and that is where the whole question hangs. Why do I say so? Because in connection with the Passover (and it was at that period Christ was crucified), there were other Sabbaths than the Seventh-day Sabbath. [Applause].

Turn back to the law of the Passover as originally given and you will find not merely one, but more than one Sabbath, and it is quite possible that the Saviour may have been in the grave not only two Sabbaths, but even three, that is, that three days in succession may have been Sabbaths. You now perceive where we are: - Every Seventh-day was a Sabbath under the Jewish law, but every Sabbath was not a Seventh-day. There was a special Sabbath, which was a high day, a Sabbath day, and that day had its day of preparation, and, therefore, Mr. Bradlaugh will have to prove that the particular Sabbath mentioned was a Seventh-day Sabbath, and not a high day, or special Sabbath appertaining to the Passover week. [Applause].

MR. BRADLAUGH: - Permit me to rise to order. The text I quote said, "At the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week."

MR. KING: - I thank my opponent for his remark, because it enables me to add a word. If the Saviour were in the grave two Sabbaths, the Passover Sabbath and the Seventh-day Sabbath, then the reference of Mr. Bradlaugh is strictly applicable to the case. But Mr. Bradlaugh mistakes the thing altogether. Those who came to the grave came not at the close of the first Sabbath, but, as intimated, in connection with that Sabbath which precedes the first day of the week. Mr. Bradlaugh mistakes me if he understands that I only argue for one Sabbath. I admit the Seventh-day, but say that He was in the grave at least two Sabbaths, and, therefore, Mr. Bradlaugh's explanation was out of order and his interruption certainly disorderly, inasmuch as it does not affect the case. [Hear, hear, laughter and applause].

Now I suppose each party will conclude, that the debate has been satisfactory. I scarcely remember any expressions of dissent from the audience, and the approbation has been on both sides moderately expressed. I think I have given an outline of Christianity, which covers the entire ground, or at least on all the great points of the Christian faith. With regard to the Atonement, my opponent might have entered upon that early, for I gave it place in my first speech.

As to future punishment he had also in that speech a distinct intimation with which he might have closed and grappled and gone into the matter quite early in the debate, but instead of doing so he piles question on question, so that he has always been able to point to something which I could not through want of time call your attention to. All that I can now say is, let us always make it our main object to seek for truth. I only desire that; and if I could be convinced that Christianity is not the truth, I would abandon it. I would then not take the course which Mr. Bradlaugh takes, but I would relinquish Christianity if I could not believe it, and publicly declare that I had done so. I do not think it for the good of mankind for any persons to defend Christianity if it be not true. I want you to lay hold of the truth and follow that truth where ever it may lead. For truth ne'er dies - once let the seed be sown, no blight can kill it. Neither wind nor rain, nor lightnings, nor all the wrath of elements can e'er uproot it from the hungry soil.