MR. KING: - You are told that I have not given you a passage from the New Testament showing the existence at the time of Christ's crucifixion of a Sabbath other than the Seventh-day Sabbath. But I have given proof, and will give you further proof from the Old Testament - Lev. 23:24, "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the Seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a Sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation." There then you have a Sabbath which falls on the first day of the Seventh month, and I suppose every return of the first day of that particular month, did not happen on a Saturday! You have the Sabbath of that particular month, on whatever day of the week the first of the month may fall on. It was to be "a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation."

Then you have on the tenth day of this Seventh month (which sometimes falls on a Saturday, but six times as often on other days) a Sabbath in addition to the Sabbath of the first day of the month. If you turn at your leisure to the first part of the 23rd chapter of Leviticus, you will find Special Sabbaths which are not Seventh-day Sabbaths, but connected with the Passover, and falling on the fifteenth day of the first month, and also on the seventh day of that convocation, whatever day of the week that might be.

Now, the Saviour was crucified at the Passover season, and, therefore, there were of necessity other Sabbaths than the seventh-day Sabbath at that time. Now, what Mr. Bradlaugh has to show in order to make good his case, is, that one of the Special Sabbaths could not have followed the day of Christ's crucifixion. His business is to prove that, or he fails to demonstrate that Christ was interred on Friday night. I have shown that the next day could have been a festival Sabbath and not a Seventh-day Sabbath, and, therefore, his argument falls to the ground unless he shows the impossibility of one of these Special Sabbaths recurring.

A word in reference to my abandonment of the Old Testament and my return to it. The Old Testament has never been abandoned by me; not one fraction of it have I ever abandoned. The whole question was whether Christianity could be found in the Old Testament, and I said "No." The question was, whether the laws of the Jewish nation are the laws of the Christian Church, I answered, No! for the laws and ordinance of the Church of Christ are in the New Testament only, and those of the Jewish nation are wholly in the Old Testament.

Christ quotes from the Old Testament in innumerable instances. All the New Testament writers, or nearly so, quote from the Old Testament, and portions of the Old are embodied in the New. Mr. Bradlaugh is quite entitled to appeal to the Old Testament, inasmuch as Christ and His Apostles claimed that the Books comprising the Old Testament were there as a result of the Divine inspiration, and, therefore, I have appealed to it. No Christian can abandon the Old Testament.

But then he must be sadly wanting in discrimination who cannot perceive, that if the history of the Jewish nation and the laws and ordinances of that nation are in one part of the Bible, and the history of the planting of the Church of Christ and a record of the faith and order of that Church are in another part of that same Bible, and that the two records are so far distinct, that the law of the one is not the law of the other - he must be, indeed, undiscerning, who does not observe that we must go to the Old Testament for the one and to the New Testament for the other, and he knows nothing of the science of interpretation who jumbles them up together. [Applause]. I did not, then, abandon the Old Testament; but I have endeavoured to show my opponent how to use it. [Renewed applause].

Next, a word is demanded as to the antiquity of the Book of Daniel. It was, according to Josephus (Ant. B. 11 c. 8) shown to Alexander the Great, in Jerusalem, on his way to Persia 332 B.C. The Book of Daniel is in all the copies of the Septuagint. Aristeas, Josephus, Philo, and others, testify that the Septuagint was made during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Others refer it to the date of Ptolemy Lagus. These traditions are reconciled by understanding it to have been produced during the two years when Ptolemy Philadelphus shared the throne with his father, which brings us to about 285 and 286 before the Christian Era. At that time (it is well known) a multitude of Jews had settled in Egypt, particularly at Alexandria. They had their Sanhedrin, of seventy or seventy-two members, and it is not unlikely that their authorization or sanction of the translation originated its title - THE SEVENTY.

Aristobulus in the 2ND CENTURY BEFORE CHRIST (in a fragment preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus, and also by Eusebius), affirms the translation into Greek in the time of Philadelphus. Thus - "It is manifest that Plato has followed our law, and studied diligently all its particulars. For before Demetrius Phalereus a translation had been made, by others, of the history of the Hebrews going forth out of Egypt, and of all that happened to them, and of the conquest of the land, and of the exposition of the law. Hence it is manifest that the aforesaid philosopher borrowed many things; for he was very learned, as was Pythagoras, who also transferred many of our doctrines into his system. But the entire translation of our whole law was made in the time of the King named Philadelphus, a man of great zeal, under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus."

Then, too, the prologue of the wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach (ascribed to the time of Ptolemy Physcon about 133 B.C.) makes mention of "the law itself, the prophets, and the rest of the books," having been translated from the Hebrew into another tongue. The apostles also largely quote from the Septuagint, and the early Fathers speak of it and refer to the time I have intimated. Thus we are thrown back to that period.

Now please to observe that I have been careful to narrow the compass of this matter in order to have some tangible - something really worth grappling with. You will observe that I rest my case, with regard to Daniel's prediction, upon those events which have been fulfilled since the time when the existence of the book is demonstrated by its translation into Greek. Nor do I rest upon events transpiring soon after the Septuagint was produced, but I come right down the Christian Era to the present time, and show continuous fulfilment, even to the present year, and therefore, the evidence is undeniable. It matters not, to a year or so, when the Septuagint was made, nor who were the translators, I prove the existence of the Book of Daniel, more than sufficient time before the fulfilment of the prediction to render it impossible for those prophecies to have been given otherwise than by Divine revelation.

Now, in what way have these various fulfilments been met by my opponent? "Oh, you have been told about beasts and horns" is the answer given to my minute pointing out of the fulfilment of the various explicit predictions presented in connection with these beast symbols. Had I been simply deducing from them the interpretation - had I been simply giving you my opinion of the interpretation, the remarks you have heard tonight from Mr. Bradlaugh might have been presented. But the chapters from the Book of Daniel contain both the symbols and to a large extent their interpretation, and history supplies us with the fulfilment. [Hear, hear].

Now, there are various irrelevant matters arising out of the remarks of Mr. Bradlaugh. Some of these we shall classify, and bring them before you either on this evening or the next. But let us have a word in reference to the spread of Christianity. My opponent objects to my argument, that you cannot account for the early and extensive spread of Christianity without admitting the miracles. I referred to Gibbon, who alleges that the miraculous power ascribed to the first Christians was among the causes of that vast progress. He did not, I presume, believe in the miracles, yet he could not account for the vast early spread of Christianity without thus ascribing it to that cause. But if the people of the apostolic time embraced Christianity on the belief of miracles, then, taking into view the criterion by which they are sustained, they must have been wrought.

Then there has been an endeavour, and not at all a creditable one, to throw some doubt upon the testimony of Pliny. That ancient writer spoke of the Christians, but my opponent intimates that Pliny might have alluded to some other class of persons. But I must insist that Pliny knew what he was writing about, and intended exactly what he said, and has left no authority to my opponent to correct what he has written. Pliny states that the Christians overran the cities and the smaller towns and the open country round about, and not only so, but that the worship of the temples had come almost, if not entirely, to a close. It had been suspended, but through rigour and force and persecution it was reviving again, and all this was within 70 years after the death of Christ. This testimony cannot be shaken; we must allow Pliny to mean Christ when he said Christ, and Christians when he said Christians. We must allow him to have been conversant with the facts he wrote about, and which as a public magistrate he had to deal with.

Then our friend says that the spread of Christianity was not greater than that of Mohammedanism and Mormonism. That is easily said; but what would be much better is proof, rather than the mere declaration, because you have not only to take into consideration the spread of Mohammedanism and Mormonism, but you have to take in the whole of the accompanying circumstances. There is one very famous way of spreading Mohammedanism - and that is, to present the Koran and the sword and to say, "Now, you must receive our faith or you die." You have here, then, a very important element in the spread of Mohammedanism, but the apostles of Christ did not go forth with the sword. If my opponent will produce evidence that in the days before Pliny men were forced into the church by the Civil Government and by the sword, he will have done something in the case, and will have brought the matter to the level, in one particular, of Mohammedanism. But he will have to do that before his plea can be admissible, and before his alleged analogy can be accepted. He must, therefore, look somewhere else to make out his case.

But Mohammedanism not only prevailed by the sword, but it did so by adapting itself, in its promised rewards, to the passions of the people. Christianity did not do so, but exactly the reverse. It came with large demands upon its adherents for self-denial and cross-bearing. The whole case then falls to the ground. There is really no comparison.

Then there is Mormonism, and with that my opponent fails as completely as with the other. Why so? Because, in the first place, Mormonism did not come preaching an entirely new faith. It came to people professedly Christian and proposed to them great leading doctrines of Christianity. True, some of those doctrines were subverted by Mormon teaching, but, nevertheless, they were there, held forward in the foreground, and did their work in gaining entrance for the doctrines peculiar to the Mormon system. Thus Mormon preachers proclaimed one God, and one Son of God (Jesus Christ), and one Holy Spirit, and one Baptism - they taught salvation by faith. Mormonism has its vast falsehoods, directly opposed to Christian doctrine, but it is as deceptive and cautious as it is false, and hence it came holding out to view almost exclusively those points of its doctrine which are Christian, or that deviate but little therefrom. It has made most of its converts by having Christianity emblazoned on its banner [Applause], and by thus adapting itself to the conditions of the people; and it gained many converts merely on account of the facilities supplied for emigration. In these particulars, the conditions presented were the opposite of those which accompanied the early preaching of Christianity, and Mr. Bradlaugh's comparison utterly fails. [Applause].

MR. BRADLAUGH: - The first point alluded to was that of the second Sabbath. I did not require Mr. King to give me proof of the other Sabbaths. I required him to give me proof of the second Sabbath intervening in the gospel, which he has not done; and the Sabbath which he refers to, and quotes Leviticus to prove, cannot by any possibility be the one referred to in the gospels. There was to be a Sabbath "in the seventh month, in the first day of the month;" but if you look to Ex. 12:18, you will find the Passover fixed for a different time altogether. "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread until the one-and-twentieth day of the month at even."

But then he says that to make out my case I have to show you that one of the Levitical Sabbaths could not be intervened. I say no; it lies on him to show it. But, if it does rest on me, I will show that it did not intervene. Mark 15:2: "And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph went and craved the body of Christ." The Sabbath - you see the definite article is used. Next we have in chapter 16 these words: "And when the Sabbath was passed" the two Marys went and found that Jesus had risen; and I say that the plain meaning of that language is, that the Sabbath which was past meant the Sabbath immediately preceding the first day of the week, and must have been the Seventh-day Sabbath. The definite article must refer to the Sabbath just before mentioned as preceding, and precludes the possibility of any other intervening.

Then we are told that Mr. King did not want to insist upon any particular time as the date of the Septuagint, and he quotes Josephus, B.C. 32; but surely what that historian wrote about the commencement of the Christian Era can hardly be evidence of something that happened 300 years before, unless he quotes some one who had written before him, and I would rather have the original testimony in that case. But what is the use of quoting antique dates. You see he quoted from the Septuagint. Is that true? If you say that he quoted some of the passages in the apostles and some in the Septuagint? Yes, but only to show what was denied in some cases was absolutely defended in others; and yet Mr. King spoke as if the Septuagint was in evidence, and in their hands at the time.

Then he objects with regard to the instance of prophecy I cited. I gave you the precise instances of its fulfilment. Did he? Well, did not he take an illustration from our own times to show that Garibaldi handed over some portion of Papal territory to Victor Emmanuel - a statement which he has not substantiated. It is enough for me to take one brick out at a time, and if I show that one is wrong I floor all.

Do you say that Gibbon speaks of them as alleged miracles? Why, that is the most amusing style of argument. He says - Well, if a people are shown to have believed in the miracles, the miracles must have happened. Do you mean that? People believe in Hindoo miracles performed by the Dervishes. Must they have happened? People believe in the miracles of Mohamet. Must they have happened? Why, we have not a religion in existence without miracles devoutly believed in by its followers. If miracles alleged are to be taken as admitted because somebody believed them, then you have overwhelming evidence of the truth of every religion in the world.

And I did not say that the Mohammedans or the Mormons were more numerous. [Hisses]. Hold your tongues. [Shame]. What I did say was - Will Mr. King show that the Christians were more numerous among the people then living for some time after the introduction of Christianity. [Applause]. Mr. King coolly reverses every position. He invents a statement and then he wants to prove the opposite.

He has got to prove his statement about the miraculous spread of Christianity, and the only evidence he gives us is from Pliny's letter; and anything more reckless, more unfair, more absolutely devoid of truth, could not be than Mr. King's repetition of what he professed I said. I did not pretend to say that Pliny did not refer to the Christians, but I said that a sect called the Essens, or Essenes, or Essaens, with all the main features of the doctrines attributed to Christianity by Pliny, existed long before, and were spoken of in the Talmud, and by other writers. But Mr. King says that Mr. Bradlaugh asserted that Pliny meant some other than Christians. I did not say other than Christians; but I say that Pliny's speaking of Christ was no more evidence of the truth or the Divinity of the religion recorded in the New Testament and the Gospels than the existence of the Mormons was evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, or the existence of Mohammedanism was evidence of the Divine origin of the Koran.

I complain of these things; and I say that if this is the style in which the debate is to be conducted I shall get an utter contempt for the advocate who can so forget every argument one adduces to him. But Mr. King says that Christianity came across the passions of the people, and that Mohammedanism accommodates itself to them. I thought the Koran spoke against the lowest forms of all sorts of vice. I may have missed the passages our friend refers to, but perhaps he will quote them. If he wants to compare the two books even now I will show him moral injunctions as striking in the Koran as in any other book. I challenge him on that point, and it is for him who alleges the fact to make it out.

Then his argument about Mormonism is a striking one. He says it differs from Christianity in this respect. It did not seek to overturn the old faith. It admitted there was one living and true God. So I thought that Jesus and His apostles admitted that there was one God and Father; and the alteration made was quite as important, but not more important, that Mohamet makes from Christianity. There was an alteration in both, but to pretend that one was not built on the other is a pretence utterly at variance with the facts. I think I have now pretty nearly gone through the points urged during the address which has been delivered to us: and I will now ask you, supposing you take it for the moment that the clearest fulfilment of the alleged prophecy by Daniel has been made out, is that evidence to show the Divine origin of the scheme of Christianity - of Adam's sin and the world's redemption by Jesus? How are the two in any way connected one with the other? How can one be made to bear testimony of the other?

And I ask more than that, how are we to deal with this question? Jesus comes to save the world from Adam's sin. Does he come to save them whether they believe in Him or not? If He only came to save those who believe in Him, how can you urge that that religion is of Divine origin which even up to a recent time has left hundreds of millions whom it has never reached at all? If He came to save all, whether they believe in Him or not, is that religion of Divine origin which puts forward a penalty of damnation which hundreds of millions escape because the penalty was not put on them?

I urge that the statements as to miracles have been passed over in a reckless way without any attempt to justify them, and I would not degrade myself by taking part in a debate on one side or the other in which the opponent shows not the slightest respect or attention to what is said by the other. If the spread of Christianity in early times is to be believed as demonstrating the actual occurrence of a miracle, surely the existence of 500,000,000 of Buddhists, and at least 150,000,000 of Mohammendans, justifies the belief in a miraculous work in each of these religions far more than in the case of Christianity. But without even contending this, take it that there is some weight of evidence on the other side, and you have in Mr. King's argument clear proof of the Divine origin of Buddhism and Mohammedanism; and when Mr. King talks of the difference in the way in which Christianity and Mohammedanism progressed in the world, it will be time enough for me to deal with that question when he shows that there were a larger number of bona fide Christians existing at the time.

And I allege, without fear of contradiction, that the moment you find as large bodies of men moving the world as you do large bodies of Christians moving after the introduction of Christianity, you find the sword and the dagger and persecution and fire, as weapons in the hands of those who tried to spread that religion. I affirm that without fear of contradiction, and I leave it to you. [Applause].