the life of the body only? Yet do you, Father, justify what the church did and what is now regarded as ecclesiastical murder? Would you, now, had you the power, restrain me, or any one, by penal enactment, ecclesiastical or otherwise, from publicly avowing "Protestant" sentiments, or from proclaiming what you term infidel doctrines? Though neither you nor I may be able to define liberty with an exactness which shall defy criticism-you have not attempted it; try it -yet let us come to practical questions. You profess to despise vague generalities. I shall not indulge in them. Let us see how far we agree as to what kind of liberty should be guaranteed to a people.

Do you believe in the broad-gauge religious liberty we Americans enjoy? Were the United States under Catholic domination would what we call "religious toleration" be enjoyed to the same extent by people of all shades of religious and non-religious faith as at present? If not, to what extent abridged? Some twenty years ago or more I read an editorial in the Pittsburgh Catholic, in which the writer claimed that Catholic nations alone had the right to forbid the exercise of other than prescribed kinds of worship, for the reason that non-Catholics only believe they are right while Catholics hold their faith with the certainty of knowledge.

A year or so ago it was broadly published that a son of General Sherman, in a lecture before a Catholic institution of learning, spoke in advocacy of the inquisition. I never heard or saw a denial of the charge, though I watched the papers to see if one was made. But true or false, what say you on the subject? Your ideas may help us to a practical definition of liberty satisfactory to both of us.

We now approach a marvellous piece of assertion. We are told that as to the physical and intellectual laws man has no liberty whatever. Is it true, then, that the intellect of man,

which above all things else determines his choice and shapes his conduct, has no more freedom of action than a grain of sand, or the wave that dashes on the shore and returns again to the bosom of the deep? May not man abuse his intellectual as well as his moral nature? Perhaps I do not understand the Father. I hope not, and that the reader's perception is keener than my own.

The subject of polygamy, as practised under the Old Testament dispensation, is next in order.

Ingersoll." We are informed by Mr. Black that polygamy is neither commanded nor prohibited in the Old Testament— that it is only discouraged. It seems to me that a little legislation on the subject might have tended to its discouragement. But where is this legislation?"

Lambert.—“In your first article on the Christian religion you said that the Bible upheld polygamy as the highest form of virtue. Your opponent met your assertion with a denial that the Bible so held or taught. Here a direct issue was made-a question of veracity raised. And how did you meet it? Did you stand by your statement and proceed to prove it? Not at all. You reply by saying that the Bible did not legislate against it. This is an admission that your statement could not be sustained-a raising of the white flag."

Here, we are told, is a question of veracity. Veracity, of course, means adherence to truth. If a man lacks veracity he is untruthful; is, in short, what the Father, by necessary implication at least, often calls Mr. Ingersoll-a liar. Would his critic like to be tested by the same rule? Let us see. The Father says that Mr. Ingersoll asserted that the Bible upheld polygamy as the highest form of virtue. He said no such thing. What he did say was this: "But the believer in the inspiration of the Bible . . . is compelled to insist that there was a time when polygamy was the highest form of

virtue." You may ask whether there is a substantial differ between the words as written and the words as quoted. Y waiving the fact that when a man's veracity is to be tested has a right to be tried by his exact words, there is this di ence: as written the words referred to assert a logical con sion, which, sound or unsound, is not regarded as a test of racity, but involves merely a question of construction. charge that the Bible taught or upheld polygamy as the hig form of virtue would imply that the Bible contained c mands or precepts exceedingly favorable to it. Without a ring this, we might still insist that as God's chosen people, his especial favorites, who walked in his ways and were after his own heart, were permitted to enjoy a multiplicity wives without reproof, that such permission was equivalen the divine sanction.

Yet we do not impeach the veracity of the good pri He no doubt intended to be truthful, but in his anxiety entrap Mr. Ingersoll got caught himself.

Ingersoll." In the moral code (of the Old Testament). one word is said on the subject of polygamy."

Lambert.-" Then why did you say that the Bible tau polygamy as the highest form of virtue?"

We have already shown that the Father has imputed Mr. Ingersoll words which were not written by him. H we have the same false charge the second time repeated.

Lambert." If you look in Genesis, chap. ii., verse 24, y will find the following words: 'Therefore shall a man lea his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife [ wives], and they shall be two in one flesh.' This is the 1 of the case. This text is sufficient to upset all your talk ab the Bible teaching polygamy."

Mark what Father Lambert is trying to disprove. opponent had said: "In the moral code of the Old Testam

not one word is said on the subject of polygamy." Has this been disproved? What is a code? A system or digest of laws. Does the one verse quoted answer to the definition ? Who wrote that one verse? Some of the most orthodox scholars and divines now admit that Moses did not write it. Some years ago an able essayist wrote an article for the "Princeton Repertory and Review," in which he argued that some ten different authors wrote the book of Genesis.

To whom was this command given? No one knows. Did the Jews regard it as a command? It would seem not, for in the lifetime of Adam it is recorded (Genesis iv. 19): “And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah." Not a censure intimated from any quarter. No reproof of the vile practice is found from Genesis to Malachi; from the alpha to the omega of the Old Testament.

Moses is the reputed author of Genesis. Would he have recorded a law of God relating to the most sacred of relations, for the guidance of the human race of all nations and for all time, and then have shamelessly violated it? Was Davidthe man "who kept my commandments and followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes" (1 Kings xiv. 8)-was he a gross violator of one of the first provisions of the divine "code?"

But even if the clause referred to were prohibitory, the uninterrupted and unrebuked practice for thousands of years among God's own people, and even while he was their direct ruler, would certainly seem to be a practical repeal of the command. The injunction to keep the Sabbath day holy was thought of sufficient importance to be incorporated in the moral code, the ten commandments; and its violation was punished with death. At which would the Christian mind the more revolt-the picking of chestnuts on Sunday, or a

harem a la Turk? Perhaps when Genesis, chapter ii., was written men were monogamists. That like men of the present day they may have thought one wife quite sufficientsometimes one too many. But the Jewish nature was covetous, and, though strict observers, in the main, of the ceremonial law, the Hebrews neglected marital proprieties as well as the weightier matters of the law, judgment and mercy. They grew, perchance, into polygamy, and if their Jehovah rebuked the practice they have failed to record the fact.

In what way was it "discouraged," even, when the favorites of God were permitted to have wives ad libitum without admonition or reproof? Polygamy was a concomitant of barbarism, and under the enlightening influence of civilization it faded away. It is not forbidden in the Old Testament, but the wisdom of experience condemned it and it was substantially, if not entirely, extirpated in Judea before the Christian era. The Father says that slavery is not a sin per se (in itself); will he inform us whether polygamy and concubinage are sins per se, or sinless when practised for sanitary

reasons?

Lambert.—" But on what principle do you condemn polygamy? Christians say and believe it is wrong because God has forbidden it [when and where?], but by what right do you say it is wrong?

"Now in the light of this doctrine of liberty, how do you dare to obtrude yourself and notions between any man and woman? What right have you to limit a woman in her selection of a man, even though that man be the husband of other wives? ... Deny God and assert unlimited liberty, and where is the wrong in polygamy?”

No one has pleaded for unlimited liberty, i. e., license. "But how dare you obtrude," etc. I answer for the same reason that we dare object to the immolation of witches and