A Great Point Settled

A reinarkable tüeologieal diseussion has just been closed. ft has been the pecuharity of all theological discussions tor the past eighteen hundred years or so that instead of leading to argument they have invariably ended in widening the divergence betvveen the disputante. Bilt the discussion we are about to consider furnishes a striking exception to the rle, for it has ,endod ín an enthusiastie, we can hardly gay cordial, agreement. This would be a cause for reoicinfi' were if, nnt tlit t!m j„„:„;„„ reached concerns the eternul happiness or unbappiness of a large proportion of tho human race. The question under discussion was the soniewhat familiar one, Is there a heil? It did not start in that form, but by unanimous consent assumed that form and was decide i the affirmative The parties to the discussion were Senator Ingalls and the Rev. Dr. Patton. The case is an interesting one, and is likely to be so farreaching in its influencè that we will state ite ïise, proress and triumphant co?,clusion tersely, mn ivith all the accuracy which its exceptiona! merit deservos. oenaior ingalls began the trouble by somo remarks in the Senate during the memorinl exercises there in honor of the late Senator Hij], of Georgia. As near as we can inake out froni the version now glven, he expressed sonie doubts about the certainty of a future 3ife, but admitted that if there were such a state he knew of no one whose life was so riek in the prophecy of a future existence as that of Senator Hill. The Rev. Pr. PaUon did not like thn snnppi, r,,i quotcd somo sentences f rom ít in hls religious nevvspaper under the heading of "Heathen Talk in Congress." He also apponded some comments, calling Mr. Ingalls an infidel, and saying tlat the utterance of his views in "eonnection with the solemn comrnemorative services of a Christian Senator was a pieee of pure impertinence." That there might be no doubt about his own views utton imnRrfinAnnn rw nr wu branch of the subject under discussion, the Rev. Dr. Patton marked a copv of his paper and sent it to Mr. Ingalls ïhé caso was not well opened. Mr. Ingalls indited a card of response and sent it to the newspapers as well as to the Doctor, Ho observed that in his spoch on Mr. Hill he had merely "presented those reflcctions which rise in all thoughtfiü minds when meditating upn the impenetrable rnystery which veils tho future state of man from all except" the Rev. Dr. Patton, and after a slight further explanation closed in Üus animated style: "If you aro a Chnstian, I prefer to be a heathen- that is. ií your religión prompts or permits VOll V'ïi,hiiMf. trrTr-rtot; + i:u„ï those with whose views upon the great probjeuis of huninji destiny vou do not agree. I piefer to be an infidel. Tíut I am neither the one nor the other. I have had aonie doubts hitherto whether eterual punishment was consistent with infinite love, bul I am quite surc that if (nero is no heil for surii bigoted slanderers and malignant Hars as tóB there ought to be." It will be seen that Mr. Iugalls is in favor of a heil. Now comes the response and final summing up of the Rev. Dr. Patton. He starts out with the gentle Ghristian remark that he had reoently expressed the opinión that "ungentlemafaliness was not a fl l nuil j- ■ nii - M „II _ . 1.1" ■■ íitu íiuLoi lonu ui nu uuueuevers, tut ho was now convinced that he ought to roako ijl-. Ij}giüls a 'ícqaspiciious pxcpptjoa to Oijs positiop. He then reitérales áll his (ornier hsertions, accuse.s Mr. Ingalls of cribbing his views from Cicero, and ojar-pi? that "hcafheflish" is thp oply fitting torm lo shavacteríze his sentimonts, Finally, aftpr telling liini he has used language which a "truo gont lemán wouhl not uso," he oloses with this ingenious reference to the undoubted existence of a heil: "In return for jour cruel wish that I may be doomed tq 'etprnal piinishment,' permit me to expresa th hope that jou may attnin repnntanco unto life, anci, putting awáy all ípaljcp, eyil gjDeaking, bfibery and corrupt prácticos, íinajíy bp yojüomed to the srlorious rewards of the etern! hereafter." The Rev. Dr. Patton, it will bo obsorved, ie not so bjupt a person as Mr. Ingalls. He does not Indulge in a "cruel wish" that he may go to that uncomfortable place. He "hopes" the senator wU be able to get into heaven, but he wishes hlm to understaud that he will tírst have to renounce "malice, evil-speakiug, bribery and corrupt practicas," bufore he can gefc ja with the Doctor and the other meek and lowiy ühristians rho never permit thcmselves, even by Indlrectloíi, to indulge either in "maiiee" or "ovil snfiakinnf " Ifore thu discussion rests. The point which we wish í'o eiiipliagjge about it is tho agrpenient of thp two disputants; or,e an alieged heathen and infició!, and the othor a ssealous, professing Clnistian that there is a heil, and tht it is a desirablo and nccessary iustitution. Wo are not sure but that this agreement will settlo the question pormanontly, and if it does a prpligc aoijpce of djscord atnong theologians will bé remoyed. However muoh sadness tho decisión may glvo ome peopje, thore om be no doiibt that it will give groat joy to many othors who look upou a heil as an eralnently commendable plaoe of eternal abode for their euetnius. 9