, 1876-08-26

Mr. Edttor, Cute nn intere' ting de-
bate hl- Iu., c.o,,d mere between M"ssrs,
| Edwnr : aut Ednuols on the following
ours.iurs. list Docs the Bile teach
future puuis mint 2 md Is the Blb!e
n revelation tlcm Goi and IN inlhIliblr
rule OF tai h and pHrticci Mr., Edwards
argued the atiir ulIve # both questions
which we're argued tur"c evenings each.
On the first ques'i"n BON proved 'heir
cases point blank hy the SAINT testimony,
Edwards bv the literal meaning oi the
English text, Edmund. hy 'ne original
meaning of the Grcek and Hebrew
words, and tie tguTatyc, hIraoricnI,
parabolc, and spiritual sense IN winch
they were used, nnd thus made 1t appear
that all the puuIsbmcu,s threatened in
the Bible pertnincd 20. his lie alone;
and argued further that this is the scien-
tltic view ri the SUBJECT oI punishment,
that when person violates any OF the
laws of his being whether pertaining to
his physical, mental, or moral nature, the
penalty naturally and inevitably follows
in the line of cause and effect, and nntu'
rally ceases at death. But Mr.. Edwards,
clnging to the literal meaning of the
English text, and also to tue religious
dogma of mans free agency, contended
that the wicked, IN this world, do not
receive the punishment justly due to
their crimes, and that the Bible declared
that they will be punished eternnlly in
the world 10 come, at lenst all who do
not repent and accept OF the vicarious
atonemen. provided through the death
aud suffering OF Christ, and the shed
ding of his blood Tor the remission OF
their sins. He also referred to the prlnci'
pie of rctrlbutiOn as taught in the Old
Testament.
But Mr.. Ednunds asserted and under
took to show from the book itself. that
the Horst denunciations Of punishment
in the Old Testament, for the worsl
crimes that men could commit all had
reference to this lite only; and this man
kind left for two thousand years in otter
ignorance of future punishment, so far
as The Old Testament was concerned.
And hu also argued that eternal torments
were altogether inadequate to any Of
fcnse that finite bcilg could possibly
commit, and such view placed God in
the light of an unfeeling and arbitrary
tiend, and was n blasphemy of his name,
&C., in short the arguments and evidence
produced by Mr. Edmunds were about
the same as are usually put forward by
the Uniyersalsls, and which would he
TOO voluminous to produce here
Mr.. Edwal DIS submitted his case simply
upon reading the text, almost entirely
without comment, upon which he relied
for the proof of h,s side of the question
and which he understood according to
the literal English expression Of them.
On the second question Mr.. Edwards
pursued the same line of argument rs on
the first. He rected several OF the
Bible stories. among which were the
miraculous conception and birth OF
Christ--his cruCifxon and death, and
resurrection the third day, and appear
ance to his disciples afterwards and his
final ascention to the right of God in
heaven. The story of the conversion of
Saul Of Tarsns, &c, Sc, and claimed
that no such system OF justice and NOR
ality as it teaches, was ever produced
hefore-that it is superior to any other
book or system ard therefore it is IA rev.
elation from God, and an infAliblc rule
Of faith and practice.
Mr., .Edmunds nj thc other hand un.
dertook to show that the Bible does not
contain a single moral precept that was
not known, unlIeFstoDd, and Prarticed
in the world, as well before the Bible as
now,---,hat the dogmas Of the Bible,
that were not got UP by the councils Of
the church since the FIRST century OF the
christian era such las niracutuus con