ages upon which our ancestors have trod, leading to the grand ideas of freedom and civilization which we hold to-day. See the barons at Runnymede demanding from King John the concessions of the Magna Charta. The influence of the New Testament would have been on the side of the weakminded, vacillating, unscrupulous, tyrannous John," etc.— "Beliefs about the Bible," pp. 171-2.

One question of interest and dignity is raised in this discussion; i. e., what is the standard or gauge of right and wrong? Extreme cases should not be here discussed. In regard to most of these Christian and heathen are in substantial accord. But in regard to the every-day affairs of life, how are we to know what duty requires of us?

Mr. Ingersoll's doctrine is, that whatever conduces to the substantial happiness of humanity is good; and that whatever, in act or thought, tends to lessen the sum total of that substantial happiness is evil. The priest says no; and contends that the will of God is the only standard of right and wrong. The learned Blackstone, while clinging to revelation as the guide of guides, yet says, that the Almighty "has graciously reduced the rule of obedience, to this one paternal precept, that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness." How does this differ from Mr. Ingersoll's doctrine ?

But with either or both rules may we not err? Alas! here comes in that disturbing element, human infirmity.

Men like to be as gods, knowing everything: they like to speak ex cathedra, and, as they can't be gods, they delight to officiate as vicars or subvicars of the celestial powers.

Take the one rule: everything that is right tends to the happiness of mankind. With the priest, we ask, "but who is to determine what acts tend to the happiness of mankind?"

Test the other rule, "the will of God." Can we thereby obtain certainty? Let history and individual experience

answer. Who is the interpreter of the will of God? The church? What church? The Catholic? Are her members more liable to discern right from wrong than the adherents to other faiths? Are they more observant of the admitted moral code? Have not her garments been dyed in the blood of martyrs ?

...

The Father asks: "Do you, before performing an act, pause to reflect whether that act, in the long run, I will tend in the general sum to the happiness of mankind? Of course you don't. Such a calculation is beyond the power of man, hence your definition of right is a wretched humbug."

So will we say when Mr. Ingersoll claims that his rule will admit of perfect application when used by imperfect man. But what of your rule? Do you, before doing an act, pause to ascertain the will of God in regard to that particular act? For example: you have asserted that a certain passage in Josephus is genuine and that “it is not even claimed to be an interpolation, except by a few interested critics," whom you stigmatize as "infidels and Tooley street tailors." Now, reverend sir, I have shown you by quotations from the highest authorities, not infidel but Christian, not Protestant only but Catholic as well as Jewish, that this particular paragraph in Josephus is almost universally regarded as spurious—as a base forgery. Having shown you this, are you prepared to say whether you consulted your rule of faith before penning those lines which falsify history and cast unjust opprobrium upon the wise and good? Did the church, or, if for the present you prefer, the sons and ecclesiastics of the church, during the reign of Philip the Second, of Spain, torture and burn according to your infallible rule? Suppose, then, that your standard be the true one, who is to apply it? The church? The church cannot be present to gauge and direct individual action. How, then, is your "rule " to be applied so that the devout inquirer

may know what to do, and what to leave undone? You must see, Father, that the objections you make to the one rule bear equally strong against the other. The trouble is not, perchance, with either rule, but in the application of each and both.

Lambert." The doctrine that acts take their nature and quality from their results is a logical and necessary consequence of the denial of God."

No one has affirmed what your words imply.

Ingersoll.-"We know that acts are good or bad only as they affect the doers, and others. We know that from every good act good consequences flow, and that from every bad act there are only evil results. Every virtuous deed is a star in the moral firmament. There is in the moral world, as in the physical, the absolute and perfect relation of cause and effect."

We judge the tree by its fruits. The tree does not take its nature from the fruit, but the fruit from the tree, although we determine the nature of the tree by the fruit it bears. The good priest has only got the cart before the horse, which for him is a trifling mistake.

Ingersoll." If consequences are good so is the action."

Lambert.-"According to this dictum, you cannot say a cold-blooded murder or an assassination is good or bad until you have learned the consequences of it!"

This is vain quibbling. We all know from the world's experience since history became the record of human actions, that the crimes referred to do produce evil consequences. Those who have not the Bible are cognizant of this fact as well as Christians. And further, we never learned from a divinely revealed moral code that slavery, polygamy and gambling were sinful. The evil effects which flow from such practices teach us the iniquity of them; although even polygamy, as practised by the Jews, was justified by a father and saint of the Holy Roman Catholic Church! Dare the Father challenge our authority?

CHAPTER XXIII.

REPLY TO CHAPTER XXII.

Father Lambert's Vulgar and Abusive Methods Chargeable, not to the Man, but to his Religion-The Millennial Dawn-" Criticism Born of the Presen Generation"-Catholic Lambs and Green Pastures-Noble and Pure Re ligions of the Ancient Nations-Conclusion.

OUR task is nearly done. We rejoice. How near we have come to the accomplishment of the object we proposed in our introductory we leave others to judge. Much more agreeable is it to reply to an appeal to reason than to an address to prejudice and passion-to those who observe the amenities of controversy than to those who persistently violate them. To say of an opponent, as the Father has done, that he is pro ligate of statement; that he is not to be trusted; that he is unscrupulous; that as a metaphysician he is beneath contempt; that he is ignorant and superficial-full of gas and gush; that he is a philosophical charlatan of the first water, proves nothing. If, as the Father claims, he has demonstrated these charges, can he not trust to the intelligence of his readers to discover the fact? The Father has done himself great injustice and has inflicted far greater injury on himself than on his adversary. We do not think him half as bad' as his book would seem to indicate. Aside from theological matters we do not believe him saturated with vindictive spleen. Should Mr. Ingersoll, in riding past the good priest's dwelling, be thrown from his carriage and injured, the priest would

man

be the first to help him up, to afford him food and shelter, and, if need be, to call to his bedside those ministering angels, the sisters of mercy. So also, I feel assured, would Mr. Ingersoll, under reversed circumstances, do for the priest-yea, or for the priest's servant. Such spontaneous acts of kindness teach us the dignity of true manhood irrespective of creed, and proclaim the common brotherhood of man.

The Father has not said worse of Mr. Ingersoll than have Catholic writers of Protestants and Protestant writers of Catholics and of each other. But a brighter day is dawning. The spirit of love is exorcising the demons of hate, and millennial splendors of an age which shall proclaim the glad tidings of peace on earth and good will to all men are even now beginning to illumine the vast intellectual and moral firmament which spans humanity. Men are beginning to realize that no one is wholly good, nor wholly bad; that no faith, however near it may be able to approximate absolute truth, is entirely perfect; und, as Herbert Spencer puts it, that there is, in general, “a of truth in things erroneous."

Criticism is born of the present generation." In the past, e letter was revered, the spirit disregarded. Or, if a deeper than the literal meaning was sought, the word was spiritualized into an attenuated nothingness. Dogmatism was imperious, intolerant, persecuting. A blind, unreasoning faith. gave the highest claim to sanctity. Doubt was criminal. A desire to see and understand even the works of the Creator, which St. Augustine esteemed “A vain and curious desire hiding under the name of science," if not absolutely sinful, wass letrimental to growth in holiness. To enjoy the luxuries which nature provides was to indulge in questionable pleasure, while to "mortify the flesh" by self-inflicted torture argued a commendable zeal and led to a high state of spiritual exaltation. Where this spirit prevailed the fountains of