Lambert." Christianity teaches that God loves the honest man, and that he will never punish him for his honest convictions; it teaches that God, who is also infinitely wise, knows the difference between an honest man and a loquacious demagogue."

If this means anything, it implies that the skeptic is dishonest that his words belie his real convictions. What, then, must we think of such men as Humboldt, Darwin, Tindall, Huxley, Spencer, Buckle, Draper, etc.-men no more gifted in mind than exemplary in morals-who in their social and domestic relations were and are models of honesty and of unswerving affection and fidelity; who have devoted lifetimes to the study of science in its relations to the intellectual, moral, and social development of the human race? Were and are they, the sons and suns of science, hypocritical pretenders, with the known fact before them that their feigned skepticism. will damn them forever? But let such take comfort. They will be in good company; for, if Catholic teachings be true, the whole Protestant world will go with them to their drear abode. Milton will be there, with Bacon, Burke, Fox, Pitt, Washington, Longfellow, Lincoln, and Garfield. If misery love company, the companionship of such noble souls will somewhat assuage the anguish of those who, stumbling over dogma, fall into the bottomless pit.

The doctrine of "Invincible Ignorance," according to which there may be a possibility of salvation for some, will not avail men of the genius and learning of those I have named.

We will not permit you to stop with the infidel. Carry your faith to its legitimate results. When you war with the skeptic you are thankful for allies from the Protestant camp. When not thus engaged, you sweep both infidel and Protestant into a common Hades. We are here reminded of Father Ignatius of St. Paul. "About the year '50 or '51, he was going

about asking for prayers for 'unity,' and was speaking to a room-full of Protestant clergymen on the subject; he made such an impression upon them, that they agreed to kneel down then and there and pray for unity, and asked Father Ignatius to join them, pressing him to do so on every side. On this he jumped with indignation, and said in a manner quite unusual to him: 'I'd rather be torn in pieces by forty thousand mad dogs than say a prayer with you.'" A reviewer remarks: "The amiability belonged to the man, the uncharitableness to the church."

This whole subject can be summed up in the answer to two questions: 1. Can an intelligent, honest man be a skeptic in regard to what are termed the fundamental facts of theology? 2. If so, should such skepticism be punished with endless torments?

That honest men have doubted and do doubt those tenets which the Christian world holds sacred cannot admit of reasonable question. For to suppose otherwise is to affirm that men who are honest and wise in every other respect are dishonest and fools in regard to those things which the most nearly concern their interests, temporal and eternal.

The Father has answered the second question, for he says, "God loves an honest man, and will never punish a man for his honest convictions," etc. We entirely agree with this statement, and will here let the subject rest.

The story of the treachery of Judas is not to our taste; but it is at hand and must not be slighted.

Ingersoll.-"Suppose Judas had known of this plan-known that he was selected by Christ, for that very purpose, that Christ was depending on him."

Lambert.-"Suppose he was not selected for this very purpose; that Christ was not depending on him. Where did you learn that Judas was selected for this very purpose, or that Christ depended on him?"

The Father is referred to Acts i. 16: "Men and brethren: This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus." This verse is in keeping with Romans ix. 17: “For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."

Ingersoll.—“ I insisted upon knowing how the sufferings of an innocent man could satisfy for the sins of the guilty."

After a long diatribe on different kinds of justice, prefaced by scurrilous and abusive language, the Father says:

Lambert.-"You ask, how can the sufferings of the innocent satisfy for the sins of the guilty? The sufferings of the innocent do not satisfy for the sins of the guilty; they can, however, satisfy for the sufferings due the sins of the guilty, which is quite another thing. You can pay a fine of five dollars for a loafer who has committed an assault, and save him the sufferings of six months in the workhouse; but while your vicarious sufferings to the extent of five dollars remit the punishment, they do not satisfy' for the offence."

Startling logic! Wonderful analogy! If I pay five dollars for the loafer who commits an assault I satisfy the penalty imposed by the judicial officer. The penalty is a pecuniary one, and, whether in strict justice or not (for the administration of human law is imperfect), the officer of the law is obliged to take it. But suppose the "loafer" is convicted of murder and is about to be hanged, or commits petit larceny and is about to be imprisoned, can I take his place on the scaffold in the one case, or suffer incarceration in his stead in the other? We pause for a reply.

CHAPTER XXII.

REPLY TO CHAPTER XXI.

Non-Resistance—The Standard of Right and Wrong-Experience Teaches that Evil Acts Produce Evil Consequences-A Saint and Father of the Catholic Church Justified the Polygamy of the Jews.

How pleasant would be the labor of controversy, in cases like the present, if disputants loved truth above all things, and their fellow-man next to truth! What is victory purchased at the price of verity? What a triumph over an adversary if we fail to lift him up and dismiss him with a blessing? They who war with carnal weapons are despised if they seek a mean or covert advantage; or if, after they have vanquished him, they treat a fallen foe with aught save kindness. What of those valiant knights who wield the "sword of the Spirit," and on whose heavenly armor is emblazoned the motto: "When reviled revile not again?"

166

The Father's anxiety to do justice to his opponent is made beautifully manifest in the beginning of Chapter XXI. In his first article in the North American Review Mr. Ingersoll said: Neither can I admit that a man, by doing me an injury, can place me under obligation to do him a service. To render benefits for injuries is to ignore all distinctions between actions. He who treats his friends and enemies alike has neither love nor justice. The idea of non-resistance never occurred to a man with power to protect himself. The doctrine was the child of weakness, born when resistance was impossible. To allow a crime to be committed when you can prevent it is

next to committing the crime yourself. And yet, under the banner of non-resistance, the church has shed the blood of millions, and in the folds of her sacred vestments have gleamed the daggers of assassination."

To what does Mr. Ingersoll refer but to the doctrine announced in Matthew v. 39, 40: "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also.

"And if a man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also."

Yet the Father culls a mere fragment from the article from which I have quoted, and says:

Lambert.-"This is one of your soft, indefinite generalities. Let us see what it means and what it is worth practically." Then he asks, “Non-resistance to what?"

To say the least, this is cool.

Perhaps the Father may fail to understand the following quotation: "Let us take the teachings of the New Testament concerning resistance to evil: the doctrine concerning the citizen's relation to government. What is it? Resist not evil.' The Quaker is the only man that attempts to carry out the doctrine of the New Testament in this direction; and if all the world were Quakers [they fought like Trojans in the late war] we might possibly get along with it, though I question whether even then it would not be a pretty tame, poor kind of a world. Through resistance to injury, resistance to tyrants, fighting for liberty, fighting for right, has the civilization of the world grown. Paul says, 'He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God.' 'The powers that be are ordained of God.' That is substantially the New Testament doctrine. The powers that be are manifestations of the will of God, and resistance to tyranny and injury of any kind is unchristian. Yet look back down the pathway of the