himself on the subject of the rapid spread of Christianity, as an attestation of its divine mission.

Black. "When Jesus of Nazareth announced himself to be Christ, the Son of God, in Judea many thousands of persons who heard his words and saw his works believed in his divinity without hesitation. Since the morning of creation, nothing has occurred so wonderful as the rapidity with which this religion has spread itself abroad. Men who were in the noon of life, when Jesus was put to death as a malefactor, lived to see him worshipped as God by organized bodies of believers in every province of the Roman empire. In a few more years it took possession of the general mind, supplanting all the other religions, and wrought a radical change in human society. It did this in the face of obstacles, which, according to every human calculation, were unsurmountable. It was antagonized by all the evil propensities, the sensual wickedness, and the vulgar crimes of the multitude, as well as the polished vices of the luxurious classes. It was most violently opposed even by those sentiments and habits of thought which were esteemed virtuous, such as patriotism and military heroism. It encountered not only the ignorance and superstition, but the learning and philosophy of the time. Barbarism and civilization were alike its deadly enemies. The priesthood of every established religion and the authority of every government were arrayed against it. All were combined together and, roused to deadly hostility, were overcome, not by the enticing words of man's wisdom, but by the simple presentation of a pure and peaceful doctrine, preached by obscure strangers at the peril of their lives. Is it Mr. Ingersoll's idea that this happened through chance? If not, there are but two ways of accounting for it: either the evidence by which the apostles were able to prove the supernatural origin of the Gospels was overwhelming and irresistible, or else its

propagation was provided for and carried on by the direct aid of the Divine Being himself. Between these two infidelity may take its choice."

Ingersoll." This argument is applicable to all religions. Mohammedans can use it as well as Christians. Mohammed was a poor man, a driver of camels. He was without education, without influence, and without wealth, and yet in a few years he consolidated thousands of tribes, and made millions of men confess that there is one God, and Mohammed is his prophet.' His success was a thousand times greater during his life than that of Christ. He was not crucified; he was a conqueror. Of all men he exerted the greatest influence upon the human race.' Never in the world's history did a religion spread with the rapidity of his. It burst like a storm over the fairest portions of the globe. It will not do to take the ground that the rapid rise and spread of a religion demonstrates its divine character. Years before Gautama died, his religion was established and his disciples were numbered by millions. His doctrines were not enforced by the sword, but by an appeal to the hopes, the fears and the reason of mankind; and more than one-third of the human race are to-day the followers of Gautama. His religion has outlived all that existed in his time; and, according to Dr. Draper, there is no other country in the world except India that has the religion to-day that it had at the birth of Jesus Christ.' Gautama believed in the equality of all men; abhorred the spirit of caste, and proclaimed justice, mercy and education for all."

Ingersoll.-"The history of the world is filled with instances where men have honestly supposed that they had received communications from angels and gods."

Lambert." How do you know that they honestly supposed? Must you not, from the nature of the case, take their words for the honesty of their supposition?"

Surely this is vain quibbling. However mistaken men may be, we usually judge of their sincerity by their general truthfulness and probity of character. But, however honest they may be, we distrust the revelations of those who graphically describe the unseen world or testify of those who set at nought the laws of nature, which our experience tells us are fixed and invariable. There are spiritualists whose word, in regard to ordinary events, I would not discount; yet before accepting their testimony in regard to the supernatural, I would require proof equivalent to demonstration. So also of prayer cures and "modern day miracles" of every sort.

Lambert.-"The apostles claimed a divine communication and mission. They worked miracles in proof of their claim. These miracles proved both to the apostles themselves and to those who witnessed them that there could be no mistake about their claim. What we must say is, that you are mistaken' when you assume to be a better judge, a more reliable witness, of events that transpired nineteen hundred years ago in Judea than those were who then lived, saw those events with their own eyes, or heard them with their own ears. Would your statements, under the circumstances, be taken against theirs in any court of justice?"

Here, again, is a begging of the question by one who was to grant nothing and take nothing for granted. Here it is assumed that miracles were wrought, the very statement denied in the controversy. The church might as well face the real issue: Is there sufficient evidence to convince intelligent and unbiased lovers of truth that miracles, as recorded, were ever wrought? The skeptic says, along with miracles we read of witchcraft and demoniacal possessions. Witches have been banished from educated society, and demonology is a thing of the past. The insanity of the present was the "evil possession," not only of the Jews but of other nations. A crazy

man was supposed to be possessed of a devil; and yet, by the light of modern science, we see that insanity is a physical disease, and all enlightened physicians treat it accordingly.

If, then, we see a bundle of superstitions with miracle wonders in the same envelope, we are apt to question the latter as we do the former. We desire a modicum, at least, of the same kind of evidence which satisfied those who have left a record of what they professed to have seen. The ignorant can still be made to believe in witches, ghosts, and demons; but is it right to abuse the credulity of unlearned and unreflecting minds ? It might not be well to let a flood-tide of light on humanity all at once. It is vain to feed a man more than he can assimilate-to indoctrinate him with more truth than he can grasp and hold. The notions of men should not be too rudely shocked. Light must be graduated to the eye. All this, however, does not imply that we should teach positive error nor withhold truth from those who earnestly seek it. But how long must humanity remain in the vestibule of knowledge? How long before fear will cease to be the ruling element of religion? We read of many miracles to-day, not only among Catholics but among Protestants as well. All seem to be equally well authenticated, and yet what scientific man will listen patiently to a recital of these wonders? We repeat, it is too bad to impose upon the credulous. Apropos : Years ago a servant girl, with a kindly interest for my spiritual welfare, for which I shall ever be grateful, offered me the loan of a Catholic publication. I have forgotten the name of the book but shall not soon forget one legend it contained. It was in substance this: A beautiful girl had two lovers; they fought in jealous rage and both were killed. So incensed were their friends at the innocent cause of their “taking off” that they cut off the head of the dear girl and cast it in a well. She had died without confession. A bishop passed by,

and the head ascended to the top of the well and asked leave to confess, which it did, and the soul was seen (I do not remember by whom) to ascend to heaven! This is only a specimen of legends innumerable, which are put forth as verities—equal verities as apostolic miracles-by a church claiming to be immaculate! The book was not endorsed by an œcumenical council, but it was the kind of food which the shepherd gave to his hungry flock.

But there is another class which professes to open to our vision the portals of the unseen world: spiritualists, men and women, who believe what they tell us, for dying they confess the faith. Their expositions of the mysteries of spirit life are quite as well vouched for as are the kindred claims of the Catholic Church. They invite us to their seances, and exhibit a candor, which the church should emulate, by submitting their claims to scientific scrutiny. They claim to “materialize " the spirits of the dead, and to bring them face to face with their friends and kindred in the flesh, who frequently recognize them, and, with a waft of fragrance, consign bouquets to their ethereal fingers. If the Father derides their claims will they not say to him as he said to Ingersoll, "What we must say is that you are mistaken' when you assume to be a better judge, a more reliable witness, of events which transpired before our eyes than we who saw them; 'would your statements under the circumstances be taken against' ours 'in any court of justice?'" On this question the spiritualists have the vantage-ground; for what they are ready to swear they have seen or heard they might testify to; but what the church asserts in regard to apostolic and patristic miracles is, at best, but hearsay, and not admissible as evidence in courts of justice.

The question of the verity of miracles, when divested of theological flummery, is a simple one. It involves only a question of fact. Why should the ignorant and superstitious