MR. KING: - Christianity, if of Divine origin, cannot be destitute of supernatural attestation. You are entitled to demand miracles in support of its claims. That demand we are prepared to meet. At the first it was attested by miracles, and miracles will attest it to the end of the dispensation. I do not say that our present miraculous attestation is of the same kind as that which accompanied the early proclamation of the gospel, but we have that which is sufficient for the requirements of the case.

The miracles of Christianity may be divided into two classes: - the one class for the generation living when they were wrought, and the other for periods then future and distant.

Man is possessed of physical and intellectual power. Beyond a given line he cannot go. By an exertion of physical power he can move certain bodies, but he cannot move a mountain. By an exercise of intellectual power he may calculate some of the effects of present continental movements. But no man can tell who shall rule England three hundred years hence, nor predict the then character of its government nor give a list of its ministry. To move the mountain would require supernatural physical power; and to map out the future in the way described can only be accomplished by supernatural intellectual power. Applying these remarks to the subject in hand the case stands thus - Man cannot do the works attributed to Christ - the walking upon the sea, giving sight to the born blind, healing the sick, raising the dead. Nor is there power in nature to bring one from the dead, as Christ is said to have been brought after blood and water from his side had given evidence of actual death. So, on the other hand it is impossible by an exercise of power appertaining to our race, or inherent in nature, to foretell the rise, character, decline and fall of nations, and other events not less remarkable, as has been done by those who claim to have spoken by the Holy Spirit. If we prove this to be the case it will then be established that God has spoken to man and that, therefore, Christianity is of Divine origin.

We might offer various proof of the numerous, public, beneficial displays of supernatural power put forth by Christ and His apostles, did time permit. I must, however, on this head, be content with insisting that the early extensive progress of Christianity cannot be accounted for except by miracles. It must be remembered that the first advocates of Christianity were few, poor, uneducated for the most part, and uninfluential. They could use no force themselves, nor had they help from Jew or Roman. They were subjected to fierce opposition and persecution.

Of the vast early progress of Christianity there can be no doubt. The Emperor Trajan died A.D. 117. Pliny, about A.D. 107, wrote to the Emperor for instruction as to what he should do with the numerous Christians who everywhere avowed their faith in Christ. He intimated that great numbers were examined, some by torture, and he further said - "Suspending, therefore, all judicial proceedings, I have recourse to you for advice: for it has appeared to me a matter highly deserving consideration, especially upon account of the great number of persons who are in danger of suffering. For many of all ages and every rank, of both sexes likewise, are accused, and will be accused. Nor has the contagion of this superstition seized cities only, but the lesser towns also and the open country. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it may be restrained and corrected. It is certain that the temples, which were almost forsaken, begin to be more frequented, and the sacred solemnities, after a long intermission, are revived."

Now let it be observed that this was the state of the case A.D. 107 - that is within about 70 years of the death of Christ. Further, that this state of things had then existed for some time, as the "solemnities of the heathen temples" had been subjected to a "long intermission," though they were then somewhat reviving by means of severe persecution. Turning to the infidel historian, Gibbon, we have not only this vast early spread of Christianity admitted, but the fact is accounted for, in part, by reference to the miracles. He says - "A pure and humble religion gently insinuated itself into the minds of men, grew up in silence and obscurity, derived new vigour from opposition, and finally erected the triumphant banner of the cross upon the ruins of the capitol." Again he says - "It will, perhaps, appear that it was most effectually favoured and assisted by five following causes." Among the five he names - "The miraculous power which was ascribed to the primitive Churches" - "The pure and austere models of the Christians* - "The union and discipline of the Christian Republic."

Thus, then, the Heathen and the Infidel attest the progress of Christianity, and the latter calls in the aid of miracles to account for the fact. Nor can it be otherwise accounted for. It has been well said that its first propagators had for adversaries - "the national pride of the Jews; the implacable hatred of the Sanhedrin; the brutal despotism of the Roman Emperors; the raileries and attacks of the philosophers; the libertinism and caste spirit of the pagan priests; the savage and cruel ignorance of the masses; the faggots and bloody games of the circus; they had an enemy in every miser; every debauched man; every drunkard; every thief; every murderer; every proud man; every slanderer; every liar. Not one of the vices, in fact, which abuse our poor humanity, which did not constitute itself their adversary. To combat so many enemies, and surmount so many obstacles, they had only their ignorance; their poverty; their obscurity; their weakness; their fewness; the cross and miracles." Miracles of healing and of other displays of supernatural physical power wrought by Christ and His apostles, were intended as demonstrations to the people then living, of their claim to be received as ambassadors from God. On the other hand, PROPHECY (which is not less supernatural) supplies miraculous attestation, not to the people to whom the prophecies are uttered, but to those of the time of their fulfilment, and, subsequently, to all who knew that they were recorded before their accomplishment and sufficiently definite and complex to render certain that they could not result from human forecast.

PROPHECY, then, is a standing miracle in evidence of Christianity. It is enough in itself, though there is enough without it, to render certain that God has spoken to man and that Christianity is Divine. Prophecy offers a vast field, in which we might roam for more than our nine nights, but there are only two evenings devoted to the present inquiry, and, as I shall have to pay attention to matters introduced by the other side, I can devote but little more than an hour to this important branch of evidence, and, therefore, only some three or four distinct prophecies can come under notice.

So far as the Old Testament is concerned, I shall, perhaps, fall back chiefly upon the book of Daniel. The first question is - Did the Old Testament, or this particular book of the Old Testament, exist before the time when it is alleged the predictions were fulfilled? I answer "Yes," and give one fact in proof, viz., that of the translation of the Old Testament into Greek, say some 250 years before the introduction of Christianity. This Greek translation (known as the Septuagint) then, renders us certain that the Old Testament existed long before the days of the apostles of Christ. This cannot be gainsaid, and I need no more as the foundation of my argument.

Now turn to the book of Daniel. Observe! I do not care when the book was written; nor whether you admit Daniel as its author. I only insist, that it was known two or three hundred years before the introduction of Christianity. I do not for one moment admit that it was not in existence long before that, but I do not at this time so assert because my argument requires no more than I have now affirmed.

Now, in Daniel 2 we have a dream-vision with its interpretation. The vision was of a large image, with head of gold, breasts of silver, middle parts of brass, legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay. The interpretation sets forth that the head represented the King, or Kingdom, of Babylon, which existed when Daniel gave the interpretation. The silver represented a second Kingdom, which was to subdue the first and take its vast dominion. The brass part stood for a third Kingdom, which in its turn was to arise and subdue the second, and the legs of iron were the symbol of the fourth and last Empire, which was to absorb the previous dominions. It will, of course, be admitted that counting Babylon as the first there have been just four successive kingdoms such as the vision foretells.

Turn to chapter 7 and you have the same prophetic outline over again, only in place of four metals you have four beasts (ravenous beasts and birds being in Scripture symbols of kingdoms). The beasts of this vision were - 1. Like a Lion with Eagle's wings; 2. Like a Bear, with three ribs in his mouth; 3. Like a Leopard, with four wings and four heads; 4. A Beast, dreadful, terrible and strong, with great iron teeth and ten horns - out of whose head also there arose another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.

Turning to verse 15 we find Daniel saying - "I was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet: and of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell: even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High: and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them: and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end." - Dan. 7:15-26.

Now, beginning with Babylon (which existed when the vision is said to have been seen and which is therein represented by the first beast, as in the former vision it was by the head of the image) there have been just four vast successive Empires - i.e. Babylon, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman. We are now prepared to note the prophetic intimations of this vision concerning the Roman Empire, whose symbol was the fourth beast.

. It was to be diverse from the three previous empires.

That each empire differed in some points from the others might be alleged, but the difference thus so strongly expressed must be peculiarly distinctive, and accordingly there were two particulars in which the Roman Empire was at opposites with each and all of the three previous world-powers.

.1. (A). They were absolute monarchies, Rome was a republic;

(B). Each of the three was succeeded by another of its own kind - one great dominion taking the place of the other. Rome was not succeeded by any such empire. No fifth power, like unto those of which Rome was the fourth, has been allowed to exist, and even now if the nations of Europe go to war it is almost certain to be over some attempt, real or imaginary, to disturb the "balance of power." The nations will not allow any one of their number to take steps to facilitate its becoming what Rome and the previous three empires were.

2. Its territory was to be divided into Ten Kingdoms.

It is distinctly said that the ten horns are (or stand for) ten Kings (or Kingdoms). This is not a fanciful correspondence of mine. There stood the prediction, centuries before the breaking up of the Roman Empire. And you know that Rome was not subdued and replaced by one power, as were the previous Empires, but it was divided into several Kingdoms as indicated by the horns.

3. After the Ten Kingdoms another Kingdom, represented by the Little Horn, was to arise.

This, however, must not be put down merely as one item in the specification, for there are several points of remarkable prediction involved.

(A). This Eleventh Kingdom was to be diverse from each and all of the Ten Kingdoms among which it arose.

After the ten Kingdoms the Latin kingdom arose - i.e., the Kingdom of the Popes, which is unlike all the others, inasmuch as the Ecclesiastical and Civil swords were held by the same hand; and its Priest-King, as the pretended vicar of Christ, obtained authority over all the Kingdoms. In that astounding particular the Little Horn Kingdom is diverse from all the others.

(B). More stout than his fellows.

He was to speak great things. And the Pope-Kings have declared themselves God, and exalted themselves above all that have been called God's. This stoutness, or the power of their kingdom, has been felt by all Europe. Even England has bowed down at its feet. And what nation has not in some way and time prostrated itself before the Little Horn, or Papal Kingdom.

(C). To pluck up three of the Ten Horns - Kingdoms.

Yes, just three of those kingdoms were to be broken, and to yield their territory to the Popes, and thus constitute them kings - Lords of peoples and territory. In the eighth century there were ten kingdoms, and of three of these the Pope possessed himself - the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Kingdom of the Lombards, and the State of Rome. And, till this year, he who pretends to have in his girdle the keys of St. Peter, has worn "The Triple Crown." The mapping out of these extraordinary facts thus clearly (centuries before their occurrence) has to be accounted for by those who deny that we are dealing with the words of inspired men.

(D.) Shall wear out the Saints of the Most High.

The term Saint is the recognised New Testament name for the Church of Christ. How completely and fearfully this prediction has been realized martyrs in thousands testify. The horrors of the Inquisition and the numerous persecutions instigated or directly carried out by the Papal Institution fill up the outline of this section of the prophecy.

(E.) He shall "think to change times and laws."

But does not every government think to change the times and laws of the state to which it appertains? Certainly. And, therefore, this prediction cannot be understood in that usual sense; for that could not be given as a marked peculiarity of this kingdom which is a common feature in all kingdoms. It must, therefore, have special reference to the times and laws (or commemorations, statutes, and institutions) of other kingdoms, which in some unusual degree and in some special way, it would subvert and abolish. Now, what are the facts? Why the Pope-Kings have controlled, in an extraordinary manner, the kingdoms of Europe generally. Not only so, but they have set at defiance the enactments of Christ and His apostles; and, while claiming to be the vicar of Christ, not only changed, but reversed, the laws of His Kingdom and church; not only thus changing times and laws, but using the secular power of the nations to inflict capital punishment upon those who refused to submit.

(F.) His dominion to be taken away to be consumed and destroyed till the end.

It was not to terminate by some great and sudden overthrow, but a consuming or gradual destruction of his kingly or civil power was to progress until its complete end. Or, as intimated in another part of Scripture - "The ten horns, or kingdoms, which gave their power to the beast, shall turn again and consume him with fire." - Rev. 17. And so indeed it has been. No kingdom has done more for the papal kingdom than has France. Yet it was the work of the first Napoleon to humble the Pope and to sever many, and weaken all, the ecclesiastical and civil ties that bound the whole of western Europe to the throne of Rome. This, indeed, seems to have been his mission, and so long as he confined himself to it success crowned his efforts. In 1796 he took command of the army in Italy. The Pope was compelled to cede part of his territory and to pay large ransom. In 1798 the commander of the French army entered Rome, abolished the papal government, proclaimed a republic, sent Pope Pius VI. to France, where he died in captivity. More recently a better man than either the first or the last Napoleon (Garibaldi) led on his few brave but untrained followers and, as if by miracle, defeated disciplined troops innumerable and handed over a considerable portion of the papal territory to Victor Emmanuel. The events of the last few weeks you know. The sceptre is broken - the dungeons are annihilated - from the temporal power of the papacy the nations are freed, and that, too, by the very process described in our prophecy.

(G.) The prophecy further intimates that the duration of the papal persecuting power would continue not less than 1260 years.

Daniel describes this period as "a time, times, and the dividing of time," by which the Jews understood three years and a half, or forty-two months. This is seen in the fact that the 1260 days in Rev. 12:6 are in verse 14 distinctly termed "a time, times, and a half." But in prophecy a day often denotes a year (as in Ezekiel 4:4-6; Numbers 14:34). The persecuting power, then, was guaranteed for at least 1260 years. This renders the prophecy vastly more explicit, because all that we have shown to be fulfilled might have been accomplished in half that period.

But when did this term of 1260 years begin and end? There are two periods, from either of which the beginning might date, and give a termination in complete accordance with the prediction. What we want to find is those events which put the little horn (or Bishop of Rome) in the position of avowed headship over all professing Christians.

Bower (in his History of the Popes) thus writes concerning Justinian:- "By an edict which he issued (TO UNITE ALL MEN IN ONE FAITH, whether Jews, Gentiles, OR CHRISTIANS), such as did not in the term of three months embrace and profess the Catholic faith were declared infamous, and as such excluded from all employment, both civil and military, rendered incapable of leaving anything by will, and their estates were confiscated. These were the convincing arguments of the Catholic faith; but many, however, withstood them, and against such the imperial decree was executed with the utmost rigour. Great numbers were driven from their habitation, with their wives and children, stripped. Others betook themselves to flight, carrying with them what they could conceal, but they were plundered of the little they had, and many of them inhumanly massacred." In connection with these events Justinian addressed a letter to John II, Bishop of Rome, saying - "We have hastened to bring into subjection and to unite to the use of your Holiness all the priests of the whole Eastern church - your Holiness THE HEAD OF ALL THE HOLY CHURCH." To this the Pope replied - "You preserve the reverence of the Roman See, and are subjecting all things to it, and bringing them into union with it; to whose founder, Peter, the charge was given from our Lord's lips, Feed my sheep, which see, the rules of the fathers, and the statutes of the princes, and the much-to-be honoured expressions of your piety, attest truly to be the head of all the Churches - your EDICT is conformable to apostolic doctrines; I CONFIRM THIS WITH MY AUTHORITY." Here we have the Emperor giving, and the Pope accepting, that "lordship" over the saints which was condemned by Christ. This took place in the Hebrew civil year, which commenced September, 532. Now, what happened 1260 years after that time? In September, 1792, the French National Assembly proclaimed the Republic, a result of which was the destruction for the time being, of papal power. But the prophecy shows that the foretold break-up was not to be final, but the commencement of a consuming which was to go on to the end - the words are, "take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it to the end." That consuming has been going on, delivering this nation and that - rescuing this part of the papal territory and then the other, until now nothing remains. The other date of commencement is 606, when the Pope first completely assumed universal headship. If we start from there, the 1260 years land us in 1866. Then, and since then, events have fallen in quick succession which bring to a close the temporal power of the Pope, and deliver the residue of the peoples from his grasp. Before 1796, then, the papal persecuting power could not pass away, or Daniel would be a false prophet. Nor could it wholly terminate, as a subsequent consuming was foretold.

Thus I have demonstrated the fulfilment of a long and extraordinary series of predictions, coming down to this day, and foretold 2000 years ago. And surely these fulfilled predictions, which can be greatly multiplied, prove that God has spoken to man by the prophets, and that, consequently, Christianity is of Divine origin. [Applause.]

MR. BRADLAUGH: - Perhaps when Mr. King replies again he will tell us the precise part of the Papal territory which Garibaldi handed over to Victor Emmanuel. I was there at the time, and I don't remember it. I dare say our friend would not have ventured on saying it without thinking he could support it with proofs, unless he said it without knowing what he was talking about; but I don't remember any part of the territory held by the Pope which was handed over by Garibaldi to Victor Emmanuel.

I must complain of the utter recklessness of Mr. King talking about four kingdoms, and ten kingdoms, and beasts, and horns, as though it were all a matter of certainty, and as though they were sufficiently put before you as to be capable of distinct proof. Nothing can be more reckless than this sort of wild talking. Supposing, however, the prophecy to be a correct one, will that prove the Divine origin of the Book in which it appears? If so, I can refer to much more striking prophecies in our own day. I know of persons - one in my own paper a week or two ago prophesying the breaking out of the war, now existing between Germany and France, much more distinctly than anything we have heard prophesied in the Bible; and Sir George Cornewall Lewis for one, has given much more distinct intimations of the Imperial attack, of the provinces to be attacked, and of the reasons which led to the attack, than any that are given in the prophecy of the Septuagint: and I say it is utterly reckless to take loose statements of this kind, and bolster up an argument with them.

As a specimen of these statements, we may mention the one about the Papal territory, but as another specimen, let us hear how the authority of the Book of Daniel was spoken of. Mr. King says that he does not care to trouble as to when the Book was written, nor whether you admit that Daniel was the author, because at any rate it was written 250 years before Christ, and he spoke of that as a dead certainty, and as if there was no doubt about it at all.

I hold in my hand a book of Dr. Irons on "The Bible and its Interpreters," and in it he says, "What is this Greek version, or Septuagint, as it is called? Who made it? From what originals was it made? And when? And why? And what is its present state? And his answer is, strictly speaking, no one knows who made the Septuagint, no one knows from what copies of the originals any part of that version was made. It appears to be a growth of at least two generations; and, as might be expected, the style is not the same throughout. Dr. Whittaker argued that what we have presented to us as the Septuagint is a production belonging to this side of the Christian era. Cardinal Bellarmine held differently.

Now, I don't pretend to set myself up between these two divines, but I urge that if the Septuagint is to be quoted here, I have a right to insist upon evidence by which its date shall be fixed. I am prepared with all that is written about it, and I will go into it, and demonstrate the facts if our friend dares to adduce any proof to show that he has not introduced his statement for the sake of deceiving you.

I don't care to discuss tonight the fulfilment, or the nonfulfilment, in the wretched fashion in which he has put it, of these alleged prophecies of the Book of Daniel, because when you come to look at it, nothing could be more monstrous than to urge in loose and indefinite phraseology about kingdoms and horns and beasts mixed up in this most extraordinary fashion. Why, even our friend who wants to make out the prophecy precisely, by his own account makes it six years out and then adds to it. Well, if it is not precise, of what value is it as proof at all? I reject the Book on this ground, that it has antedated the whole of the four kingdoms of which it speaks. I urge that we must have more definite proof than Mr. King's loose words, - by ancient authors, not modern writers who manufacture history to fit in with their particular views.

But leaving matters of prophecy for a moment, and putting this to you as if the prophecy were thoroughly correct - supposing it to apply in every particular, what evidence is it of the truth of the history of Jesus? How does it prove that Jesus was born without a father? How does it prove that His mother's husband had two fathers? How does it prove the genealogy through Joseph to David, who was no relation whatever? How does it prove that John knew him and did not know him at one and the same time?

How does it prove that he was three days and three nights in the grave, and that He was interred on the Friday, and did not rise again on the Saturday? And, by the bye, since I came into the room I have had handed to me by Mr. King the text as to the supposed second Sabbath, which he alleges as making up the time of the days and nights. He gives me Lev. 23, 1st to 8th verses, and Lev. 23, 24th to 28th verses. He has not dared to give you a text out of the Gospel, to show the possibility of the Sabbath coming in - not a word in this text from Leviticus to show the possibility of two Sabbaths intervening between the texts which I have read, and I think that is simply monstrous as a matter of argument.

Leaving prophecy for a moment, the same thing applies to miracles. Mr. King urges that if the Bible is of Divine origin, it cannot be destitute of Divine attestation, and he quotes the miracles to show such attestation. Now, Mr. Rathbone Greg, in "The Creed of Christendom," urges "1st - That miracles wrought by any individual are not, nor can be, a proof of the truth of the doctrines which he preaches; and 2nd - That miracles are not the real basis of Christianity, and cannot be a safe foundation on which to rest its claims, inasmuch as miracles can never be proved by documentary evidence, least of all by such documentary evidence as we possess." Now what is the documentary evidence on which Mr. King will have to base his miracles, which he has to support his book by? Why, he will have to quote the book for the miracles, and then quote the miracles for the book. He makes a double endorsement come from the same pages.

But what book does he quote? The gospels. Well, if so I ask, when were they written? Where? Who by? How will he trace back the Gospels to those who are supposed to be the original writers of them? On this subject I'll let Dr. Irons, as clergyman of the Church of England, speak again, for nothing can be more definite on this matter. He says in effect: - "That the further we trace back for the ancient standards of Christianity in the Greek text, the greater is the obscurity and uncertainty - in fact, we become perfectly lost in the search." Now, I ask here - Are we to have unknown unauthenticated writers quoted in support of miracles, which in their turn are to be quoted in support of the Divine authority of the books themselves?

But let us press this still further. Miracles, says Mr. King, are of two kinds - the one as evidence for the generation then living, and the other for those who were to live thereafter. The miracles for those who were then living evidently failed, for the Jews, the people among whom these things are said to have been performed, always persistently rejected Jesus, and never have believed in Him.

But, says Mr. King, the progress of Christianity, so suddenly, in itself, was a miracle. Let him show, numbers for numbers, that Christianity spread faster than Mormonism or Mohammedism has done in the same period of time. If he cannot, then if the progress of Christianity is a miracle the progress of Mormonism and Mohammedism is equally a miracle.

But he says that Christianity was first advocated by poor men, humble men, ignorant men. That is Mr. King's statement I know; but has he got it from the book? Let him quote from the book, and let him show from the book sufficient authority for his statement. Don't let him assume all the facts, and then treat his assumption as facts. In his speech we have had the loosest and wildest sort of attack imaginable.

We had read to us from Pliny - not quite accurately - some statement about the Christians, but surely Mr. King is not so unacquainted, so ignorant of what Pliny tells us, as not to know that what Pliny says of them, with the exception of the singing of a hymn to Christ, - that what that ancient writer said of them would apply equally well to the whole of that sect he was speaking of, and to the Essens, or Essenes, or Essaens, and that those things described by them answer in every respect - in all the asceticism, in all the morality - to what you may find is supposed to be taught by Jesus. No man would be mad enough to deny the existence of the sect.

I don't care to discuss whether a man called Jesus or Christ was at the head of it. But what I do care to discuss is, whether His mission was originated by God; whether the Book contains a divinely-revealed account of His life and teachings. I don't care to discuss whether there was a people called Christians, because their existence is a fact; but I don't admit the divinity of the account of the Christians given in that book, just as I don't dispute the existence of the body called Mohammedans, and the book called the Koran, though I dispute the divinity; or the existence of the Mormons, though I do not admit the Divine origin of the book of the Mormons handed out by Joe Smith.

It is utterly useless to point to Pliny, because I have a copy of his letter, and I don't find a word in it in corroboration of the history of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels; and I put it to you that it is manifestly wrong to tie a number of loose things in this discussion together, as though they were any sort of argument at all. Permit me, as nothing whatever has been done (as I submit) to discuss the question from my point of view, to ask - Is this Christianity of Divine origin? First we are in the grave difficulty, that even now, after two nights spent in this debate, if you understand what Mr. King knows, what Mr. King means, by Christianity, you are in a happier position then myself; because first, I was, it seemed, to be precluded from going to the Old Testament; then I was not; then there were certain parts of it repealed; and now Mr. King goes wholesale to the Old Testament for his prophecies.

Let me go to the Old Testament, too. I take it that our friend puts it that Daniel's prophecy is of Divine origin, and he brings one book of the Old Testament to bolster up some portions of the New. Then take them side by side, and I will ask whether such a thing as this, taken in connection with any other, can be read as Christianity. We read in Lev. 25:44, "Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." Now I ask whether any book which contains an injunction permitting people to buy, and breed, and sell slaves can be a book that comes from God. It will not do for my friend to shut out the Old Testament now. He has gone to it for prophecy, and I go to it to demonstrate that what comes from bad and rascally men cannot be from an all wise and beneficient God.

But I will take the course followed by our friend and turn to the New Testament. Let us see what is recorded in the Epistle of Jude (v. 9): "Yet Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." Now does my opinion hold that it is part and parcel of Christianity to believe that the devil and the archangel Michael did have a dispute about the body of Moses, and that the story is of Divine origin? Does he think that God revealed it, and that it is part of God's message of salvation to man?

Evidently Jesus believed in devils, for we find distinctly spoken of the casting out of devils by Jesus. Now, these are a portion of the miracles relied upon. Is it not true that for years and years people went on believing in demoniacal possession, and that hundreds of people have been burnt for witchcraft and wizardry? But modern science has set aside all that delusion, and the insanity which arose from it. Well, then, I ask whether such monstrous stories as these are to be taken to be of Divine origin. How will the prophecy of Daniel show that Jesus cast out devils, and that the devils went into a lot of pigs, who ran into the sea? What earthly connection is there between the evidence and the facts?

Take another illustration. Turn to Hebrews, chapter 12:16,17: "Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." Romans 9:13: "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Turn to the story of Esau in the Old Testament. As our friend turned, so I turn to Genesis to see what is said of this story, and what do I find? Whatever the fault of Esau in selling his birthright to his knaveish brother, that this same brother got the blessing. Jacob as stated in Genesis 27:18 went disguised to represent himself as Esau. "And Isaac his father said unto him, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy son, thy first born Esau." Jacob gives a lying account of the matter. Can we believe the account in the New Testament is from God when we read is extraordinary account that Jacob, the liar, who tricked his brother out of his father's blessing, inherited heaven for this virtue and for no other than that of cheating and lying. And what becomes of the benefits of your Christianity when Jacob, rascal as he was, was loved of God and in heaven? I ask how is this a fulfilment? Things so absurd are scarcely worthy to be noticed.

Again, in Romans 9:17 you find: "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." Now turn to Exodus and see the account that is given of that in the book. You find that God determined to rescue His chosen people, who were at the time in Egypt. You find that he sends Moses with a message to Pharoah to let His people go that they might serve Him. You find that Moses asks him, and that he did not, and the text, in express, distinct, and clear terms, says that the Lord had hardened Pharoah's heart so that he would not let the people go so that they might serve Him, and yet He punishes the people for it. Then we find that the Lord works miracles. I won't discuss the absurdity of these miracles, the plagues that were inflicted on the people, ending with the destruction of a number of human beings who could have no share in Pharoah's crime; but I ask you whether you believe that God dealt with the people in this way in consequence of Pharoah hardening his heart when God had previously said to Moses, "I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go."

But go further. In Gal. 4:22-3 you will find this: "It is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh, but he of the freewoman was by promise." Now, I ask you, do you believe Jesus and His disciples could hold that same horrible doctrine of Leviticus about there being a difference in the position of life because some were born bond and some free? What is the use of quoting Daniel in support of an argument that Christianity is of Divine origin when we are told that God makes a distinction between the bondwoman and the free?

We come next to Timothy, where Jesus is said to be of the seed of David. How on earth can it be shown that the prophecies of Daniel prove that He was descended from David? The only way is by tracing the genealogy through some one who was no relation. It cannot even be traced to His mother, Mary; because, so far as the gospel tells us, she was the cousin to somebody who was of the tribe of Levi. How can the prophecy affect this, and what is the use of our friend bringing forward statements in this loose fashion which are utterly unconnected?

In the 2 Tim. 3:8, we have an example of conduct put as conduct to be imitated. We read - "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth." Now, we know nothing about Jannes and Jambres. How do we know how they withstood Moses? What is the object of telling us anything about it. If the book is of Divine origin why did God send such a foolish message? because if we turn to Genesis and Exodus we find nothing about it. What is the use of telling me about the Divine origin of Christianity being proved by Daniel's prophecy and its fulfilment, when I can point you to reckless and incoherent matter such as you have here?

But carry it further, and I will take my opponent up to the very door and he shall not escape. In Matthew 6:9, Christ was giving directions to His apostles, and he commences: "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name." Now, I ask Mr. King whether the doctrine that God lives in heaven was of Divine origin? Clearly it was a doctrine which the apostles held, because in Acts 7 you find these words: "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." There are many passages in the Old Testament which speak of God coming down from heaven, but I ask whether Christ resided in heaven, and how the statement of invisibility accords with the text?

Take the contents of the book itself, and say if you can that it is of Divine origin? Are the stories contained in it any more reliable than the fables of Baron Munchausen or than the Arabian Nights' fiction? It is of no use people concocting fables as vain as themselves, and then pretending to build something upon them. I have striven to adhere to the Bible in what I have had to say; and I ask whether, after two nights' debate, we have the subject really grappled with at all? How will you know, from what has taken place, what Christianity is, and whether or not it is of Divine origin?

If our friend had in any way shown us that the history of Jesus was connected with the prophecy - if it had been shown that Daniel in any way spoke of Jesus, then it might be understood. If he had spoken correctly in one instance, there would be some ground for saying that he had spoken correctly in the other; but the prophecies of Daniel are not shown to have the slightest bearing on the question of proof as to whether or not Christianity is of Divine origin. Why, you might as well say that the prophecies of Ruth - the prophecies in the book of Job and Proverbs, attributed to Solomon, were proved to be of Divine origin by the history of Jonah. You must connect them in some way with Christianity, which you yourself define to be the doctrine recorded in the New Testament, and the teachings of Jesus and His apostles. That you have not done; you have not taken one step to do it.

More than that, you at first recklessly repudiated the Old Testament. It was the basis of the argument, and when I asked what authority you had, you were obliged to return to it. Now, don't let us play fast and loose with the matter. Let us understand each other; let us understand, as nearly as we can, the standard of authority on which we base our arguments in these discussions.

Is Christianity of Divine origin? Does it spread show it to be of Divine origin? If so, I say that the Buddhists and Mohammedans are more numerous than the Christians. Does its spread in old times show that it was of Divine origin? If our friend says so let us have some proof of it, because if I had known that he intended to take up this line of argument, I should have been prepared to show that the spread of Christianity in the early ages was effected, not by miracle, but by fraud, by perjury, and by every sort of cruelty, such as are charged against the Church of Rome now.

I have occupied my half hour, and I sit down hoping that our friend, in his next speech, will abandon this reckless and woe-begotten rhodomontade about beasts and horns, and apply himself to something which really appertains to the matter in hand. [Cheers.]