in such a contest should seek victory for the sake of selfglorification, nor by other than fair and seemly methods. He who is convicted of error is the victor in a controversy: for he has gained that which he had not; his opponent retaining only what he already possessed.

In disputation we should never lose sight of the point in issue. Let us return to it. Mr. Ingersoll, in his articles reviewed in the "Notes," sought to answer the question, “Is all of the Bible Inspired?" To prove the negation of this query, he instanced, among other things, the aggressive wars of the Jews as recorded in the Old Testament, with a "Thus saith the Lord" for their sanction; the practice of polygamy in its vilest forms, and unrebuked by divine reproof; and slavery as instituted by command of God.

Of course the consistent apologist who would maintain the plenary inspiration of the Old Testament must, in some way and to his own satisfaction, justify those wars, as also the institutions which, at the present day, we regard as abominations. The chapter under review is, in the main, devoted to the subjects of war and slavery. Mr. Ingersoll had said that a war of conquest was simple murder. It would seem that no one should have mistaken his meaning,-certainly no one who kept in mind the kind of wars he was condemning, i. e., the aggressive wars of the Jews. But for those who must stand or fall by the plenary inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures it is, at least, more politic to confuse than make clear.

The Father attempts to enlighten his opponent, who, he says, does not understand Judge Black's argument, by stating it "syllogistically," thus:

"According to Mr. Ingersoll, a war of conquest is simple murder.'

'But the war with the South was a war of conquest. Therefore, the war against the South was simple murder. Now

Mr. Ingersoll participated in that war, therefore Mr. Ingersoll was a party to the crime of murder."

The fallacy of this syllogistic statement lies in the misuse of the little word “conquest” as applied to the facts of which Mr. Ingersoll was writing. The words, "wars of conquest," in their proper historical application, mean aggressive wars, wherein one nation seeks to subdue and to establish dominion over another; and not defensive wars for the establishment of independent governments, nor wars to maintain the integrity of governments already established.

The historian, or conversationalist even, who should affirm that the United States had ever conquered Great Britain would be laughed at.

There never was a war waged by the United States against the "South," any more than a war against the city of New York when her riotous elements were quelled by the Federal soldiery. There was a rebellion in the Southern States against lawfully constituted authority—an attempt to subvert the general government in certain States.

This authority was maintained by force of arms. this a war of conquest?

Call you

Since writing the above I have read a paragraph in Mr. Ingersoll's essay. It is beautifully and forcibly written. I will quote it, for it will show the reader how faithfully the Father has kept his promise to give a fair statement of Mr. Ingersoll's arguments.

Ingersoll." Mr. Black justifies the wars of extermination and conquest, because the American people fought for the integrity of their own country, fought to do away with the infamous institution of slavery, fought to preserve the jewels of liberty and justice for themselves and for their children. Is it possible that his mind is so clouded by political and religious prejudice . . . that he sees no difference between a war of ex

termination and one of self-preservation? That he sees no choice between the murder of helpless age, of weeping women and sleeping babes, and the defence of liberty and nationality?" The pious priest gives us the first few lines of the above, leaving out the very pith and substance which clearly elucidates the difference between wars of conquest, on the one side, and defensive wars and wars for the preservation of national integrity, on the other.

Ingersoll." Slavery includes all other crimes. It is the joint product of the kidnapper, pirate, thief, murderer and hypocrite."

Lambert." How does it include all other crimes if it be the joint product of them? A product is an effect."

An apple pie includes apples, dough, nutmeg, etc., yet is not the pie the joint product of these ingredients? Ask your cook.

Ingersoll." The superior man is eyes to the blind."

Lambert." His superiority does not consist in seeing for the blind, but in his ability to see. His disposition to see for the blind is evidence of his goodness."

Then we ask is there no such thing as moral superiority? or if there be, is it dwarfed into insignificance by the overshadowing greatness of physical power? Were those who crucified Jesus superior to him? They had the power to crucify; he, the divine will to forgive.

Liberty-Polygamy-Rousseau's Opinion of Philosophers-Philosophy a Theology Compared.

In his twelfth chapter the Father enlightens us with a di quisition on "liberty;" and here again is exemplified how fa a good, pious man may go astray to meet the exigencies an occasion. The Father quotes: "With me, liberty is no merely a means-it is an end." Ingersoll said this and th Father pronounces the declaration "too vague." "We are he says, "all in favor of liberty, as we understand it, but w do not agree as to what it is or ought to be. It is a foolis loss of time to caw over the word until we have a commo idea or understanding of the thing. Do you mean by th word the liberty Guiteau exercised, or that of the Nihilists, that of the Mormons, or that of the thief, the robber, or th murderer ?"

Of course from this extract it would be inferred that th Father was in doubt as to what kind of liberty Mr. Ingerso referred to. What will the reader think, when informed tha the Rev. Lambert passed over three little words immediatel preceding his last quotation, which words make the meanin plain beyond cavil, and perfectly germane to the subject These words are, "I abhor slavery." And he continues "With me liberty is not merely a means-it is an end. Here it is manifest that the liberty spoken of is the kind con tradistinguished from slavery-from property-right in mer

women, and children. But because his opponent praises liberty, without specifically defining its metes and bounds, he is gruffly reproved, and told that Madame Roland said, as she was carted to the guillotine, "O liberty! what crimes are committed in thy name!" "The Christian," says the Father, "loves liberty as dearly as you; he would soar from planet to planet and from star to star, and drink in the immensity of the universe." Hold! Father, do not leave us. We only ask you to stay and be human. Drink not in the immensity of the universe, but the nectar of liberty, and repay the draught with the milk of human kindness.

Madame Roland uttered an eloquent truth. But could not every victim of the accursed inquisition have said with equal truth, "O religion! what crimes are committed in thy name!" The Father, unreasonably, we think, demands a definition for almost every important word his friend, Mr. Ingersoll, employs. The word "liberty" disconnected from any particular subject or train of thought is a mere abstraction, but liberty as the antithesis of human slavery means next to everything. At least it implies the negation of chattel-right in man; of human flesh and soul as articles of traffic; of the right to rend and desecrate the holiest ties by tearing asunder husband and wife, parent and child; of confiding to man over his fellows irresponsible power, certain of abuse in myriads of atrocious ways.

Liberty is the right to do what one may please without intrenching on the rights of others; yet the query arises, what does intrench on those rights? This question, as to details, the wisdom of ages has not fully answered. The ancient church held that heresy was a greater crime than murder. The church, from its own standpoint, was logical. Believing that the heresiarch by false teachings consigned both soul and body to eternal hell, was he not worse than he who destroyed