In this spirit I write. Not to formulate my views further than necessary, for that were foreign to the controversy; not to show that Mr. Ingersoll cannot be answered—that is not affirmed. Within a week, a day, the conviction may be forced upon us that he is radically at fault. If so, earnestly would I labor to make his errors manifest to all. A great thinker has said that “he who says he will not be convinced makes himself a slave to present opinion."

Persuade me that the pretensions of Catholicity are well founded, and I will consign myself to the arms and rest in the bosom of "Mother Church." But what I shall herein attempt to show is that the Reverend Father, on the chief points involved in the present contention, has been eminently unsuccessful in his ambitious attempt. If I succeed, and an arrogant priesthood—arrogant as to exceptions only, I trust—are taught a modicum of modesty when they oppose the views of men as honest as themselves, the labor expended in this behalf will not have been in vain.

If further they are made conscious of the truth that each succeeding age has its new issues, which should be bravely met by the devotees of truth, then will their pulpits cease giving out from day to day a rehash of threadbare, somniferous dogmas, musty with age, and alive only as the mummies of the pyramids are alive, and refresh us with living problems and freshly discovered facts of science, comporting, as they must and should be shown to do, with the material and spiritual interests of mankind. This accomplished, even in small degree, the labor of the writer will be doubly recompensed.

In the beginning of a controversy it is proper to state the real point in issue. Mr. Ingersoll, as he discloses in his second essay, proposed to discuss the question: "Is all of the

Bible inspired?" He had a right to choose his ground an did so. The North American Review, however, changed th title of his articles. This fact is known to all who have rea his rejoinder to Judge Black, for it is therein distinctly state I have seen fit, however, to follow the Father in his argumen wheresoever they lead.

und and nged the have read

tly stated. rguments

REPLY TO LAMBERT.

CHAPTER I.

REPLY TO REV. LAMBERT'S " INTRODUCTORY."

Indecorous Language of Mr. Ingersoll-Father Lambert's Vulgar and Abusive
Methods" Physician, Heal Thyself”—The Promise to “Grant Nothing and
to take Nothing for Granted," followed by the Substitution of Assertion for
Proof-"Glib little Whiffets," and "Smirched Character."

In his "Introductory," Father Lambert takes Mr. Ingersoll to task for having perpetrated gibe and jest, while complaining that his opponent had treated him with personal disrespect.

Lambert.-"You may outrage Christian sentiment, you may laugh and burlesque Moses and Christ, but you must be genteel, and polite, and nice when you speak of Mr. Ingersoll."

Does the Father not see that in the discussion carried on between Judge Black and Mr. Ingersoll, the Christian religion, and neither Mr. Black nor Mr. Ingersoll, was on trial? Moses -or whoever wrote the five books attributed to him-was also in the polemic "dock," with the leader of the American Bar, as the New York Herald ranked Judge Black (and we do not question this high estimate of his legal ability), for his counsel, and Col. Ingersoll as counter-advocate and accuser.

The people of the universe composed the jury. Let not an appeal to outraged "Christian sentiment" estop free, fair, and full investigation. We need not fear error "when truth is

(15)

left free to combat it." How could Mr. Ingersoll defend his positions at all if handicapped by a sentiment he deems spurious, and without shocking the feelings of those whose "sentiments" have been ingrained into their soul's soul? If he dispute the authority of the Catholic Church he shocks Catholic sentiment; if the doctrines of Calvin he outrages Presbyterian sentiment. Yet this may be done, vigorously done, without the least reflection on the character or sincerity of an opponent. But if the example be so pernicious, why does the Father follow it and even outstrip his adversary in a race so ignoble?

Lambert.—“Mr. Ingersoll found the legitimate field of wit and drollery preoccupied by Artemus Ward, Mark Twain, and others, with whom he could not compete. He sought new fields and, with a reckless audacity, selects that which the civilized world has always held sacred-Religion."

We ask, what religion? Whose religion? Religion in the abstract or some particular form of faith? If religion per se be a sacred thing, why should the Christian propagandist lay rude hands upon the heathen's idol, or defame the religions of Zoroaster, Gautama, and Confucius-religions ennobled by many sound doctrines and pure moral precepts? What right have we, logical or otherwise, in an argument with a dissenter, to assume our own religion as true-to elevate ourselves on theological stilts and imperiously demand a deference for our faith that is equally due to every creed which is honestly professed by intelligent men? Negation is often entitled to as much respect as affirmation. In regard to theological questions the chances in its favor are as a thousand to one; for we are assured that there can be but one true religion. If so, all others are spurious and false. Blame not the traveller who, in this interminable wilderness of beliefs, hesitates, and doubts, and distrusts his guide, while confident voices from every side

assure him that he is being led on to certain ruin. “Have faith," says the guide. "Whose faith?" asks the pilgrim. "My faith, My faith, MY FAITH," answer a thousand voices, with ever increasing emphasis. What can he do? He has but one alternative: either to use his own judgment with the aid of the best light he can obtain, or submit to be lead through darkness, he knows not where.

Lambert.—“All this time while he has been combining the professions of the philosopher, the humorist, and the ghoul, he has talked sweetly of delicacy, refinement, sentiment, feeling, honor bright, etc. All this time he has delighted in tearing, and wounding, and lacerating the hearts, and faith, and feelings of those by whose tolerance he is permitted to outrage the common sense and sentiment of Christendom."

We ask, is a faith, which is worth being preserved, liable to be torn, and wounded, and lacerated by some one who doubts, and by doubting damns himself? Oh! tender, brittle, fickle faith!

Again, are the hearts of the faithful lacerated by the gospel of love, which affirms that a God of justice and mercy infinite never could have justified slavery or polygamy-the butchery of children, nor the consignment of captive maidens to a brutal soldiery? Or, is the doctrine of an eternal hell so sweet and savory that its negation wounds and discomfits the hosts of Israel? May we not, without profanity, hope that between parent and child, husband and wife, there is no eternal barrier-between loving souls no spanless chasm? By such hopes are fond hearts rent in twain and Christian sentiment defiled?

You say it is by the "tolerance" of those whose feelings he outrages that he is permitted to speak his thoughts. No, Father, though a vile tyranny has popularized the words, there is no such thing as "religious toleration."