Grand it may be in

That which is beanother. The day

kindred. How narrow the soul that sees no good beyond the confines of kindred and kindred faith! other ways, but how contracted in this? coming to one age may be illy adapted to has passed when either the rational theologian or philosopher considers his views the axis on which the world revolves. If the wisest contribute one grain to the general accretion which goes to make up the mountain chain of human knowledge, he will not have lived in vain.

Lambert.-"He [the average man] is apt to place too much confidence in the ignorant statements of that monumental bore of modern times, the roving lecturer--price fifty cents."

When such men as the late Charles Dickens, the late Wendell Phillips, Mathew Arnold, etc., etc., enter the lecture-field, year after year, we will let their example stand as against the Father's censure; for such men are "not only superior to me, but almost equal to the Father's conception of himself."

CHAPTER IX.

REPLY TO CHAPTER VIII.

Jewish Atrocities Charged on God—The right of God to Inflict Wanton Suffering on His Creatures Denied—God has no Right to do Wrong—Justice with God and Man Qualitatively Alike though Quantitatively Unequal—Gross Conceptions of Deity-Jewish Barbarities--" Captive Maidens"--Lying Spirits, etc., etc.

INGERSOLL." He (God) ordered the murder of millions." Lambert." He never authorized or ordered the murder of any one from Abel to Garfield. God is the Author and Giver of life, and those he places on this earth he can remove at his will. No man has a right to live one instant longer in this world than his Creator wills him to remain, be he born or unborn, innocent or guilty. As creatures of God we are absolutely his, and can have no rights whatever as against him.”

The proposition embraced in the Father's comment raises two questions: (1). Has God a "right" to do whatever he arbitrarily might will with his creature man, moulded in his image, whom he made a little lower than the angels, and thought worthy a crown of glory and honor? Has he the right, for instance, to inflict wanton suffering without any moral aim whatever?

(2.) Had he, according to some mysterious rule of justice the right to do so, would he, as the merciful Ruler of the universe, exercise that right? God, we are told, is “infinite" in every holy attribute; and that holiness embraces justice,

mercy and truth. It may be assumed illogically, however, that justice in human language does not mean justice in the divine vernacular-that God's code of morals, so to speak, differs from man's code. Yet, if God has spoken to us at all, he has employed human speech as the medium of communication. If made in his "mental and moral likeness," we conceive and practise, under analogous conditions, the same kind of justice and mercy as he, only to a more limited extent. Justice and mercy, then, with God and man are qualitatively alike though quantitatively unequal. Fear of the superior power of God, and a gross conception of a liability on his part to use it to our disadvantage, may torture from us an admission that divine and human justice are not alike in kind. But we can apprehend neither justice nor mercy which is not humanly conceived and realized; any other kind is unthinkable. Scripture, when speaking of deity, addresses man as man, and appeals to his sense of right and wrong. Well may it; for we have no other means by which to judge of the morality of human actions, nor of the attributes of God. Further, the Scriptures refer us to the divine attributes as exemplified in God's government of his creature man, as proof of his own justice and mercy. Has he, then, the right to violate those attributes which are in consonance with the moral sense he has implanted within us? If so, he has the right to do wrong; to ignore those principles as eternal as his own being, of which they are supposed to form a constituent part. Can we believe that he has a right to create a sentient being, simply to damn him, and that for his own glory? In language before quoted, the supposition involves contradiction and. absurdity. Why do you call God just? because he is powerful? Alas! power and justice are seldom allied. Why do you adjudge him merciful? Is it for no better reason than that fear constrains you? Have you the same conception of

him that the cringing sycophant has of the lordling, who not only tithes the fruits of honest toil, but exacts the sacrifice of soul on the altar of adulation, to tickle a pampered and inflated vanity? Job, the hero of the poem which Carlyle pronounced, aside from its claim to inspiration, the grandest epic ever written-Job, the soul of patience and pious trust, when he feels himself unjustly afflicted, cries out in his agony: "Oh! that I knew where I might find him! that I might come even to his seat! I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments." No; if God be God, he is no Nero, no Herod, no Gessler, but a Father lifting up his children to himself. The Parent of all, they are most like him who dare speak the truth, though earth frown and hell trembles forth her anathema. We are told that we may not rejudge the justice of God. No one claims to be able to reverse his decrees; and no one, as far as I know, who believes in his existence, doubts his justice and mercy. We believe that he is good, but that you slander him by imputing to him acts he never did, and words by him never spoken. We believe that certain pictures of him contained in the Bible are but the conceptions of men who lived in dark and superstitious ages.

Even admitting that God had the right to inflict wanton torture on his creatures, as a being of perfect justice and infinite mercy is it likely he would do so? You do not believe he would, neither do I; but if man have no rights whatever as against him he would have a right to thus afflict man if he chose, and simply because he is the Creator of man. A very good reason why he should not and would not do so.

It is not forgotten that suffering begins and death ends earthly existence; that cyclones and earthquakes engulf thousands in death's dark abyss. Such is the order of nature by whomsoever ordered, or whether ordered at all. But this

we know, to such calamities all are liable. The rich, the poor, the prince, the peasant, priest, and penitent, good and bad, all succumb to the inexorable laws of nature. So also the rain and sunlight descend in equal measure upon the just and unjust. In this we behold an impartial distribution of favors, as well as common liability to the ills to which humanity is heir.

Natural law holds sway over the universe. If we break that law, even by accident, we suffer the penalty. But we are told there is a being of perfect justice and of infinite mercy, and our hearts rejoice. We know how impartial justice is, and how sweet to our holiest contemplation is that "mercy which endureth forever." We meet a book of which 'tis said, God-a name implying all the beauties of holiness-is the author, and we ask, do the facts stated and lessons taught in that book comport with the character ascribed to its reputed author? Say not we have no right to rejudge him; we agree as to his supremest excellence; it is the Book which is on trial. Can we believe, without mental and moral obliquity of vision, without renouncing every natural conception of right and wrong, that the good God inspired men to write that which shocks reason and moral sensibility to such an extent that we must call for the veil of mystery to obscure its deformity? Would we not rather believe that men—good men, considering the times in which they lived-wrote their conceptions of God and, by their traditions, defiled the pure current of history?

Lambert." He who has the absolute right to take life cannot be guilty of murder in taking it; for murder is an unjust killing, and there is no unjust killing in the taking of life by him who has the absolute right to take it. There is no escape from this reasoning except by denying the absolute right, and you cannot deny this but by denying God's existence; for on