in this age of general education, to see an infidel offering his crude notions as ultimate principles or axioms."

And we say, it is refreshing to hear a priest, who himself bases the greater part of his argument on assumption, reprove an infidel for resorting to priestly tactics. But of what was Mr. Ingersoll speaking, when he referred to the monstrous? To the story of the loquacious serpent, to the alleged universal flood, to the story of a woman transformed into a pillar of salt, and to the Tower of Babel "stopped by the jargon of a thousand tongues." And what was referred to as immoral? Slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and persecution even unto death, for opinion's sake. All this is found in the paragraph from which the Father makes the above meagre quotation, which leaves the reader to infer that Mr. Ingersoll assumed his own judgment as the sole standard of morals.

In this age does the Father require a writer to prove that slavery is an evil or polygamy a sin? that it is wrong to punish dissent from religious dogma with torture and death, or to carry on aggressive wars to exterminate a whole people -men, women and children? And yet in the article so severely criticised the writer has eloquently pointed out the injustice of slavery, the "slimy filth of polygamy,” and the atrocious barbarity of persecution and of wars of extermination. All this the reader may verify. Why, then, is the Father so reckless, sò egregiously unfair in both his quotations and comments? The very next quotation and comment he makes is obnoxious to similar criticism.

Ingersoll.—(As quoted in the “Notes.") "Mr. Black comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible is in exact harmony with the New Testament."

Lambert." Mr. Black comes to no such conclusion. It is no doubt true that the Old and New Testaments' are so connected together that if one is true the other cannot be false.'

This is your opponent's statement, and is very different from what you represented him as saying."

How has the Father succeeded in making his point, small at best? By splitting a sentence in two, leaving out an extract quoted from Mr. Black's article, and by substituting a period for a comma. This was necessary to show up the infidel! And the air of triumph: "This is your opponent's statement!" As if Mr. Ingersoll had not given, in the same sentence carved in twain by the Father, almost word for word, and without the slightest change of meaning, the language used by Judge Black, and which, with a flourish, the Father quotes. Here is the whole sentence as it appeared in the North American Review, November, 1881, page 490: "Mr. Black comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible is in exact harmony with the New Testament, and that the two are connected together;' and 'that if one is true the other cannot be false.'" Thus we see the Father garbled and mutilated a sentence; for what purpose we will leave our readers to judge. Give me the same liberty with Shakespeare as the Father takes with Ingersoll, and I will convert the grandest sentiments of the noble bard into drivel and nonsense. Such discrepancies abound in the “Notes," but it is an unpleasant task to note them.

We now approach a subject worthy the moralist—the status of slavery in itself as related to morality. It seems to be agreed that there are immutable principles, the violation of which no exigency will justify. The doing of an injury from a motive of pure revenge, for example, is an act in and of itself wrong; and no circumstances can make it right. So of adultery and some other crimes. There are other acts which, under ordinary conditions, are wrong, yet which the exigencies of circumstance may justify. Generally speaking, the right of going from place to place as one's will may dictate is

recognized by our best legal authorities. Yet may lunatics and vagrants be denied this privilege. Such are exceptional cases, sanctioned by the highest code of morals.

Many years ago I read an able and spicy debate between two Presbyterian divines-Rev. J. Blanchard and Rev. N. L. Rice, D. D. The question in issue was: "Is slavery in itself sinful, and the relation between master and slave a sinful relation?" Mr. Blanchard affirmed; Mr. Rice denied. Both disputants, of course, acknowledged the authority of Scripture, and, by an appeal to this arbiter, Mr. Rice made points all around his opponent. That the Old Testament justified slavery, in its most absolute sense, was apparent.

"Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall you 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 forever, but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor" (Levit. xxv. 44-47).

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding if he continue for a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money" (Exod. xxi. 20, 21.)

In the fullest sense, under the Hebrew code, slaves were chattels personal. They were merchandise to as full an extent as were our Southern bondsmen.

The reverend gentlemen referred to talked much of slavery "in itself," and Mr. Blanchard referred to slavery among

various peoples as always characterized by the grossest abuses, the foulest enormities. But when he came to Scripture he was tongue-tied; for the Bible was to him, as well as to Dr. Rice, the infallible rule of faith and practice.

Without an agreed definition of slavery, the question, “Is slavery in itself sinful?" reminds us of the thirteen-puzzle— impossible of solution. Suppose we discuss the question, “Is the killing of a human being in itself sinful?" As a rule it is wrong to kill; as an exception it may be meritorious. We may suppose an example where slavery would be justified; as in a case of war and by way of retaliation. But in such case the slave is held, not for profit, nor under pretence of converting him, but to exact justice, to vindicate liberty, and generally to conserve the interests of humanity.

Webster defines slavery as "The condition of a slave: the entire subjection to the will of another." Such is slavery pure and simple, as delineated by historic annals, sacred and profane, qualified by but few restrictions as to the life and person of the slave. Is slavery, as thus defined, sinful? If slaves could choose their masters, or even if the majority of men were humane, the evils of servitude would, at least, be mitigated. But alas! the slave has no choice of masters, and how few of the best of men are worthy to be intrusted with irresponsible power!

Did the Jews enslave the heathen that they might lead them to a knowledge of the true God? The Hebrews were never a proselyting race. Exclusive and egotistical, they claimed a monopoly of the divine favor. There were advanced thinkers among them, who caught, at least, a glimpse of the doctrine of universal brotherhood, and portrayed the dim vision in prophetic harmonies; and who heard their sweet refrains echoed back to them from the towers of a future Zion. But to them, as a people, God was their God. He

established a protectorate over them; and even to-day there is an undefined (shall I say undefined?) longing for the coming of a deliverer for Israel. It required a miracle to convince Peter-even after he had listened to his Master's teachings, and had received his apostolic commission from his hands—that salvation belonged as well to the Gentile as to the Jew. No; the Hebrews held slaves for gain. Their motives were not missionary but mercenary.

Lambert.—“The church during eighteen centuries fought against slavery, and taught that all men are equal before God."

Some churches did, while others have been the apologists of slavery. On this subject, during the late war, churches were divided in sentiment and that division was marked by a geographical line. But if slavery be not sinful, why antagonize it? Or, if right among the Jews, why wrong among the Gentiles? Was a Jewish more merciful than a Christian master? or was it more beneficent to convert the heathen to Judaism than it is now to convert them to Christianity?

All honor to the Catholic Church for having legislated even to "protect the slave."

Says the Father: "A council held in London in 1102 forbade the selling of men in that city, and called it an infamous traffic."

Would the good God authorize an infamous traffic among his chosen people?

Lambert.-"A council held in 922 declared that he who sold another into slavery was guilty of homicide."

Would God have established a system of wholesale homicide by express direction?

With a settled purpose not to act as umpire between Judge Black and Mr. Ingersoll, we will permit each to speak for