heretics on the altar of superstition—because it injures those who practise it and outrages the rights of those who suffer from it; because it breeds domestic discord and visits wrongs innumerable upon innocent children who become its victims. For the same reason that we treat gambling as a crime, though the casting of lots was a scriptural method of deciding questions of ecclesiastical preferment, as it is now to raise money to maintain religious establishments. We see that games of chance played for money or things of value are injurious to society, and society has the right to protect itself. Our legislators did not pass laws against gambling because it was forbidden in the Bible, for there is there no command against it; but because injurious and immoral consequences are its uniform results. Slavery is not forbidden in the Bible, but sanctioned by it, yet nearly all civilized nations have abolished it by law. Why ask, then, how we dare interfere to prohibit polygamy?

Lambert.—“And if a man is a beast, and there is no future, what is to prevent him from following the instincts of his animal nature? Reason?"

Yes, reason, were man all you suppose, which no one claims; and also because he learns by experience that virtue is its own reward and conduces to happiness, even in this life, as well as because he is endued by nature with a sense of justice, and with affections which often make self-sacrifice a pleasure when it conduces to the happiness of others—that sense of justice and love of humanity which led deists and atheists to become prime movers in the war against polygamy and slavery. But you eloquently assert that the reason this sense of right restrains men "is because God's moral code permeates Christian thought, and makes a healthy public opinion which governs even those who deny this code."

What! when God's "moral code" established slavery and forbade not polygamy?

The doctrine, that if we had no revelation we would neither moral sense nor moral law, not only antagonizes perience and sound philosophy but Scripture as well: when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by natur things contained in the law, these, having not the law, law unto themselves: which show the work of the law, w in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing on other" (Romans ii. 14, 15).

The Father quotes Rousseau, the French skeptic, to s the egotism of philosophers and the vanity of philosophy. cite all our space will allow and refer to the "No (which we hope all our readers may buy and read) for balance.

"I have consulted our philosophers, I have perused books, I have examined their several opinions, I have fo them all proud, positive, and dogmatizing, even in their tended skepticism; knowing everything, proving nothing, ridiculing one another; and this is the only point in w they concur, and in which they are right."

Too true of philosophy in Rousseau's day; and, althoug spirit has been greatly elevated and chastened since he li there is yet room for a decided advance. Philosophy, a partakes of human infirmity. It is too often arrogant in matism, and the food it offers to the hungry soul is but tially satisfying. We crave certainty and it proffers us do and bids us further on. We sigh for "respite and nepent and trust that theological science may allay our fears, teach us lessons which shall make us wise and good; and are met by a multitude of warring sects, which revile and secute each other; each claiming to hold the only pana the genuine balm of Gilead, that alone can heal the wou which ignorance and human infirmity have made. We

sacerdotal garments crimsoned with human blood, and hear echoed from the ages, shrieks and groans of the victims of religious hate. They who search for truth with honest purpose and unbiased minds, if that search culminate in doubt or unbelief, are reprobated and despised.

In view of these things, can theology look philosophy in the face, and in arrogant self-sufficiency say: "I am wiser and holier than thou?"

Woman's Rights and the Bible-Woman's Condition in Heathen and Nations-Mr. Ingersoll's Articles Garbled and Misquoted in the "Not St. Paul and Woman's Rights.

In chapter xiii. we have discussed a subject which r the Banquo question-woman's rights.

Ingersoll.-"Where will we find in the Old Testament rights of wife, mother, and daughter defined?"

Lambert." They are found in the warp and woof of

As said the preacher: "Beloved, my text is 'love;' found in the book of John, and if you wish to know chapter and verse, it will do you a great deal of good to till you find it."

The Father claims that before deciding what woman's ri are, they must be determined rightly and independently sentiments and feelings. A rather difficult task to underta for who can discuss a moral question, or one involving hu rights, without sentiments or feelings?

Ingersoll." Even in the New Testament she (woman told to learn in silence and subjection."

Lambert." Most excellent advice for man, woman, child. . . . . She (the wife) should, according to Chris law, obey her husband as a superior. Not as if in slavery, freely, in the same way that the church obeys Christ, head."

And how does the church obey Christ? Is it not by absolute subjection to his teachings on subjects of doctrine and morals-in short, to everything he teaches? Would the Father have the Catholic wife of a Protestant husband practise the same obedience that he here recommends?

As broadly stated, we should not listen to our teachers in subjection and silence. When we understand not, we would fain ask questions; when we dissent, would modestly express our objections. Not at all times and in all places, it is true, for that would be indecorous; but when circumstances admit and politeness justifies.

Lambert.-" Would you have the learner pert and impertinent ? "

I answer will you exhume mummies and ask us if we can revive them with our breath? Will you make men of straw, and ask us to adopt and defend them as our children?

No one has attempted to justify pertness nor impertinence. The attempt to defame an adversary, and discredit his argument by imputing to him ideas which he has not expressed, and which any sane man would repudiate, is both wicked and unwise.

I do not believe that Paul intended to be understood as forbidding "private opinion," even among women. He wrote to a church who well understood him, and for its instruction. It is quite possible that certain women in his day, as in ours, when they smelled the aroma of piety, went into "keniption fits, followed by unseemly demonstrations and encroachments on decorum. Paul wanted "order in meeting," and entered his protest against religious hysteria. Scripture will never be understood until read by the light of the age in which it was written. Let Mr. Ingersoll stop to do justice to Paul by admitting, at least, that he was not a Salvation Army man.