Col. Ingersoll's reply to his critics in the N.Y. "Evening Telegram."

mm NGERSOI L'S

C/

iCO

-TO HrS

Critics

— IN THE

N.Y. "Evening Telegram."

il 1392

[3l ' - '
m ROBA

(Toronto :

NTKI) IJV .1. SPKNCEH ELLTS,

OKKICK OK " SKCt'LAK TIIOI (iHT,"

(.»(.) Adelaide Street West.

1892.
Pri<-<> IO

©.

k*vo |

Presented to the

LIBRARY of the

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

from

the estate of
ROBERT KENNY

Colonel Ingersoll's Final Reply

To his "Evening Telegram" Critics,.

Trie following is Col. Ingersoll's final reply to a number of
critics who have attacked his Christmas Sermon in the N. Y.
Evening Telegram. The reply handles in a masterly manner a
number of points which are constantly being raised by orthodox
disputants :— •

To the Editor of the Evening Telegram : Time and space are lacking
to answer all who have replied to me. Several of the replies contain sub
stantially the same lack of argument, and need not be noticed separ
ately. A few are exceedingly absurd, and while reading them I thought
of a saying of Thomas Paine : " To argue with a man who has re
nounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead." This applies
with great force to the author of one of the last and longest of these
replies.

DR. DE COSTA.

The Rev. Dr. De Costa, drawing a distinction between Christianity
and Churchianity— claiming, of course, to be governed himself by Chris
tianity—calls me in an exceedingly argumentative way "a tiger," and
then, to clinch the argument, suggests that, after all, " I may be an ass
under a tiger's skin." Fearing that a loophole might still be left, he
asserts that " some go so far as to assert that he [meaning myself]
holds a brief for Satan, and is doing the best he can for his client."
He makes the familiar assertion that " by its fruits we may know
Christianity." Now, if by Christianity he means kindness, candor,
the spirit of investigation, observation, reason — in other words, if he
aggregates what are called the virtues and calls them " Christianity "
—then there need be no dispute. But is this true ? Every religion
teaches a code of morals, plus something else, and it is this " something
that determines what each religion is. Buddhism is a code of
morals, plus a belief in the transmigration of souls ; in the illumination
of Buddha ; in certain prayers, ceremonies, genuflexions, and supersti-
;tions. So Christianity is a code of morals, plus belief that the God of
the Old Testament is the creator of the universe ; that the Christ of the
New Testament is the same God, and that by his death an atonement
was made for all who would believe in him in a certain way, plus cer
tain ceremonies and superstitions.

MORALITY OF CHRISTIANITY.

No one objects to the morality of Christianity. The industrious people
the world— those who have anything— are as a rule opposed to lar-

ceny ; every lar^e majority of people object to being murdered ; and
so we have laws against larceny and murder. A large majority of
people believe in what they call, or what they understand to be, justice
— at least as between others. There is no very great difference of
opinion among civilised people as to what is or is not moral. It can
not truthfully be said that the man who attacks Buddhism attacks all
morality. He does not attack goodness, justice, mercy, or anything
that tends in his judgment to the welfare of mankind ; but he attacks
Buddhism. So one attacking what is called Christianity does not
attack kindness, charity, or any virtue. He attacks something that
has been added to the virtues. He does not attack the flower, but
what he believes to be a parasite. If people when they speak of Chris
tianity include the virtues common to all religions, they should not give
Christianity credit for all the good that has been done. There were
millions of virtuous men and women, millions of heroic and self-deny
ing souls, before Christianity was known.

IN REGARD TO PERSECUTION

It does not seem possible to me that love, kindness, justice, or charity
ever caused anyone who possessed and practised these virtues to per
secute his fellow man on account of a difference of belief. If Chris
tianity has persecuted, some reason must exist outside of the virtues it
has inculcated. If this reason — this cause — is inherent in that some
thing else which has been added to the ordinary virtues, then Chris
tianity can properly be held accountable for the persecution. Of
course, back of Christianity is the nature of man, and primarily it may
be responsible. Is there anything in Christianity that will account for
such persecutions — for the Inquisition ? It certainly was taught by
the church that belief was necessary to salvation, and it was thought
at the same time that the fate of man was eternal punishment ; that
the state of man was that of depravity, and that there was but one
way by which he could be saved, and that was through belief — through
faith. As long as this was honestly believed, Christians would not
allow heretics or Infidels to preach a doctrine to their wives, to their
children, or to themselves which, in their judgment, would result in
the damnation of souls.

THE RIGHT TO KILL.

The law gives a father the right to kill one who is about to do great
bodily harm to his son. Now, if a father has the right to take the
life of a man simply because he is attacking the body of his son, how
much more would he have the right to take the life of one who was
about to assassinate the soul of his son 1 Christians reasoned in this
way. In addition to this, they felt that God would hold the com
munity responsible if the community allowed a blasphemer to attack
the true religion. Therefore they killed the Freethinker, or rather the
free talker, in self defence. At the bottom of religious persecution is
the doctrine of self-defence ; that is to say, the defence of the soul. If
the founder of Christianity had plainly said : " It is not necessary to
believe in order to be saved ; it is only necessary to do ; and he who

5

really loves his fellow men, who is kind, honest, just, and chari
table, is to be forever blest " — if he had only said that, there would
probably have been butJittle persecution.

If he had added to that, " You must not persecute in my name.
The religion I teach is the Religion of Love — not the religion of force
and hatred. You must not imprison your fellow-men. You must not
stretch them upon racks, or crush their bones in iron boots. You must
not flay them alive. You must not cut off their eyelids, nor pour
melted lead into their ears. You must troat all with absolute Jdudness.
If you cannot convert your neighbor by example, persuasion, argument,
that is the end. You must never resort to force ; and, whether he
believes as you do or not, treat him always with kindness," his followers
would not have murdered their fellows in his name.

If Christ was in fact God, he knew the persecutions that would be
carried on in his name ; he knew the millions that would suffer death
through torture ; and yet he died without saying one word to prevent
what he must have known, if he were God, would happen. All that
Christianity has added to morality is worthless and useless. Not only
so, it has been hurtful. Take Christianity from morality and the use
ful is left, but take morality from Christianity and the useless remains.

KNOWN BY FRUITS.

Now, falling back on the old assertion, " By its fruits we may know
Christianity," then I think we are justified in saying that, as Chris
tianity consists of a mixture of morality and something else, and as
morality has never persecuted millions, the cause of the persecution
must be the something else that was added to morality.

I cannot agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that
" Christianity has taught mankind the priceless value and dignity of
human nature.'' On the other hand, Christianity has taught that the
whole human race is by nature depraved, and that if God should act
in accordance with his sense of justice, all the sons of men would be
doomed to eternal pain. Human nature has been derided, has been
held up to contempt and scorn, all our desires and passions denounced
as wicked and filthy. Dr. De Costa asserts that Christianity has
taught mankind the value of freedom. It certainly has not been the
advocate of Freethought ; and what is freedom worth if the mind is
to be enslaved ? Dr. De Costa knows that millions have been sacri
ficed in their efforts to be free ; that is, millions have been sacrificed
for exercising their freedom as against the church. It is not true that
the church " has taught and established the fact of human brother
hood." This has been the result of a civilisation to which Christianity
itself has been hostile. Can we prove that " the church established
human brotherhood " by banishing thesJews from Spain? by driving
out the Moors ? by the tortures of the Inquisition ? by butchering the
Covenanters of Scotland 1 by the burning of Bruno and Servetus ? by
tbe persecution of the Irish 1 by whipping Quakers in New England ?
by the slave trade ? and by the hundreds of wars waged in the name
of Christ ? We all know that the Bible upholds slavery in its very

worst and most cruel form ; arid how it can be said that a religion
founded upon a Bible that upholds the institution of slavery, has
taught and established the fact of human brotherhood, is beyond my
imagination to conceive.

ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE.

Neither do I think it true that " we are indebted to Christianity for
the advancement of science, art, philosophy, letters, and learning." I
cheerfully admit that we are indebted to Christianity for some learning,
and that the human mind has been developed by the discussion of the
absurdities of superstition. Certainly millions and millions have had
what might be called mental exercise, and their minds may have been
somewhat broadened by the examination, even, of these absurdities,
contradictions and impossibilities The Church was not the friend of
science or learning when it burnt Vanini for writing his " Dialogues
Concerning Nature'' What shall we say of the " Index Expurga-
torius ? " For hundreds of years all books of any particular value
were placed on the " Index " and good Catholics forbidden to read
them. Was this in favor of science and learning ? That we are in
debted to Christianity for the advancement of science seems absurd.
What science 1 Christianity was certainly the enemy of astronomy,
and I believe that it was Mr. Draper who said that astronomy took
her revenge, so that not a star that glitters in all the heavens bears a
Christian name !

Can it be said that the church has been the friend of geology, or of
any true philosophy ? Let me show how this is impossible The
church accepts the Bible as an inspired book. Then the only object
is to find its meaning, and if that meaning is opposed to any result
that the human mind may have reached, the meaning stands and the
result reached by the mind must be abandoned. For hundreds of
years the Bible was the standard, and whenever anything was asserted
in any science contrary to the Bible, the church immediately denounced
the scientist. I admit the standard has been changed, and ministers
are very busy, not trying to show that science does not agree with
the Bible, but that the Bible agrees with science.

Certainly Christianity has done little for art. The early Christians
destroyed all the marbles of Greece and Rome upon which they could
lay their violent hands ; and nothing has been produced by the Christ
ian world equal to the fragments that were accidentally preserved.
There have been many artists who were Christians ; but they were
not artists because they were Christians ; because there have been
many Christians who were not artists. It cannot be said that art is
born of any creed. The mode of expression may be determined, and
probably is to a certain degree, by the belief of the artist ; but not
his artistic perception and feeling.

GALILEO AND KEPLER.

So, Galileo did not make his discoveries because he was a Christian,
but in spite of it. His Bible was the other way and so was his creed.
Consequently, they could not, by any possibility, have assisted hiin.

Kepler did not discover or announce what are known as the " Three
Laws" because he was a Christian; but, as I said about Galileo, in
spite of his creed. Every Christian who has really found out and
demonstrated and clung to a fact inconsistent with the absolute
inspiration of the scriptures, has done so certainly without the assis
tance of his creed. Let me illustrate this. When our ancestors were
burning each other to please God ; when they were ready to destroy
a man with sword and flame for teaching the rotundity of the world,
the Moors in Spain were teaching geography to their children with
brass globes. So, too, they had observatories and knew something of
the orbits of the stars. They did not find out these things because
they were Mohammedans, nor on account of their belief in the im
possible. They were far beyond the Christians, intellectually, ai.d it
has been very poetically said by Mr. Browning that " Science was
thrust into the brain of Europe on the point of Moorish lance."

From the Arabs we got our numerals, making mathematics of the
higher branches practical. We also got from them the art of making
cotton paper, which is almost at the foundation of modern intelligence.
We learned from them to make cotton cloth, making cleanliness
possible in Christendom. So, from among people of different religions,
we have learned many useful things ; but they did not discover them
on account of their religion. It will not do to say that the religion of
Greece was true because the Greeks were the greatest sculptors.
Neither is it an argument in favor of monarchy that Shakespeare, the
greatest of men, was born and lived in a monarchy.

DR. DE COSTA'S MISTAKE.

Dr. De Costa takes one of the effects of a general cause or of a vast
number of causes, and makes it the cause, not only of other effects,
but of the general cause. He seems to think that all events for many
centuries, and especially all the good ones, were caused by Christianity.
As a matter of fact, the civilisation of our time is the result of count
less causes with which Christianity had little to do, except by way of
hindrance. Does the doctor think that the material progress of the
world was caused by this passage — " Take no thought for the morrow ? "
Does he seriously insist that the wealth of Christendom rests on
this inspired declaration : " It is easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven ? "

DOCTOR PETERS.

The Rev. Dr. Peters, in answer, takes the ground that the Bible
has produced the richest and most varied literature the world has ever
seen. This, I think, is hardly true. Has not most of modern litera
ture been produced in spite of the Bible ? Did not Christians, for
many generations, take the ground that the Bible was the only impor
tant book, and that books differing from th<> IJiblo should be destroyed ?
If Christianity — Catholic and Protestant— could have had its way,
the works of Voltaire, Spinoza, Hume, Paine, Hum bold t, Darwin,
Haeckel, Spencer, Comte, Huxley, Tyndall, Draper, Goeteh, Gibbon,

8

Buckle, and Buchner, would not have been published In short, the
philosophy that enlightens, and the fiction that enriches the brain,
would not exist. The greatest literature the world has ever seen is,
in my judgment, the poetic — the dramatic ; that is to say, the litera
ture of fiction in its widest sense. Certainly, if the church could have
had control, the plays of Shakespere never would have been written ;
the literature of the stage could not have existed ; most works of
fiction, and nearly all poetry would have perished in the brain So I
think it hardly fair to say that " the Bible has produced the richest
and most varied literature the world has ever seen " Thousands of
theological books have been written on thousands of questions of no
possible importance. Libraries have been printed on subjects not
worth discussing — not worth thinking about — and that will, in a few
years, be regarded as puerile by the whole world.

GIRARD AND LICK.

Mr. Peters in his enthusiasm asks this question : " Who raised our
great institutions of learning? Infidels never a stone of them "
Stephen Girard founded the best institution of learning, the best
charity, the noblest ever founded in this or any other land ; and under
the roof built by his wisdom and his wealth many thousands of orphans
have been reared, fed, clothed and educated, not only in books, but in
avocations, and have become happy and useful citizens Under his
will there has been distributed to the poor fuel to the value of more
than $500,000, and this distribution goes on year after year. One of
the best observatories in the world was built by the generosity of James
Lick, an Infidel. I call attention to those two cases simply to show
that the gentleman is mistaken, and that he was somewhat carried
away by his zeal.

So, too, Mr. Peters takes the ground that " we are indebted to
Christianity for our chronology." According to Christianity this world
has been peopled about six thousand years. Christian chronology
gives the age of the first man, and then gives the line from father to
son down to the flood, and from the flood down to the coming of Christ,
showing that men have been upon the earth only about six thousand
years. This chronology is infinitely absurd, and I do not believe that there
is an intelligent, well-educated Christian in the world, having examined
the subject, who will say that the Christian chronology is correct.
Neither can it, I think, truthfully be said that " we are indebted to
Christianity for the continuation of history." The best modern his
torians of whom I have any knowledge are Voltaire, Hume, Gibbon,
Buckle and Draper.

NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.

Neither can I admit that " we are indebted to Christianity for
natural philosophy." I do not deny that some natural philosophers
have also been Christians, or, rather, that some Christians have been
natural philosophers to the extent that their Christianity permitted.
But Lamarck and Humboldt and Darwin and Spencer and Haeckel
and Huxley and Tyndall have done far more for natural philosophy

tlian they have for orthodox religion. Whoever believes in the mira
culous must be the enemy of natural philosophy. To him there is
something above nature, liable to interfere with nature. Such a man
has two classes of ideas in his mind, eacli inconsistent with the other.
To the extent that he believes in the supernatural he is incapacitated
from dealing with the natural, and to that extent fails to be a philoso
pher. Philosophy does not include the caprice of the infinite. It is
founded on the absolute integrity and invariability of nature.

Neither do I agree with the reverend gentleman when lie says that
" we are indebted to Christianity for our knowledge of philology."
The church taught for a long time that Hebrew was the first language,
and that other languages had been derived from that ; and for hun
dreds and hundreds of yrars the efforts of philologists were arrested
simply because they started with an absurd assumption and believed
in the tower of Babel. Christianity cannot now take the credit for
" metaphysical research." It has always been the enemy of meta
physical research. It never has said to any human being " Think."
It has always said " Hear." It does not ask anybody to investigate.
It lays down certain doctrines as absolutely true, and, instead of ask
ing investigation, it threatens every investigator with eternal pain.
Metaphysical research is destroying what has been called Christianity,
and Christians have always feared it.

This gentleman makes another mistake, and a very common one.
This is his argument : Christian countries are the most intelligent ;
therefore, they owe that intelligence to Christianity. Then the next
step is taken. Christianity, being the best, having produced these re
sults, must have been of divine origin. Let us see what this proves.
There was a time when Egypt was the first nation in the world. Could
not an Egyptian, at that time, have used the same arguments that Mr.
Peters uses now, to prove that the religion of Egypt was divine 1
Could he not then have said, " Egypt is the most intelligent, the most
civilised, and the richest of all nations. It has been made so by its
religion. Its religion is, therefore, divine ?" So there was a time
when a Hindoo could have made the same argument, d rtainly this
argument could have been made by a Greek. It could have been re
peated by a Roman. And yet Mr. Peters will not admit that the reli
gion of Egypt was divine, or that the mythology of Greece was true,
or that Jupiter was in fact a god. Is it not evident to all that if the
churches in Europe had been institutions of learning ; if the denies of
cathedrals had been observatories ; if priests had been teachers of the
facts in nature, the world would have been far in advance of what it is
to-day?

SOURCE OF PROGRESS.

Countries depend on something besides their religion for progress.
Nations with a good soil can get along quite well with an exceedingly
poor religion ; and no religion yet has been good enough to give wealth
or happiness to human beings where the climate and soil were bad and
barren. Religion supports nobody. It has to be supported. It pro
duces no wheat, no corn ; it plows no land ; it tills no forests It is a

10

perpetual mendicant. It lives on the labor of others, and then has
the arrogance to pretend that it supports the giver. Mr. Peters makes
this exceedingly strange statement : " Every discovery in science, in
vention, and art has been the work of Christian men. Infidels have
contributed their share, but never one of them reached the grandeur of
originality/' This, I think, as far as invention is concerned, can be
answered with one name — John Ericcson, one of the profoundest Ag
nostics I ever met. I am almost certain that Humboldt and Goethe
were original. Darwin has certainly been regarded as such. I do not
wish to differ unnecessarily with Mr. Peters, but I have some doubts
about Morse having been the inventor of the telegraph. Neither can
I admit that Christianity abolished slavery. Many of the abolitionists
in this country were Infidels ; many of them were Christians. But
the church itself did not stand for liberty. The Quakers, I admit,
were, as a rule, on the side of freedom. But the Christians of New
England persecuted these Quakers, whipped them from town to town,
lacerated their naked backs, and not only maimed their bodies, but
took their lives.

Mr. Peters asks, "What name is there among the world's emancipa
tors after which you cannot write the name 'Christian ?' " Well, let
me give him a few : Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Lincoln, Dar
win. Mr. Peters asks : — "Why is it that in Christian countries you
find the greatest amount of physical and intellectual liberty, the great
est freedom of thought, speech and action 1 " Is this true of all ? How
about Spain and Portugal 1 There is more Infidelity in France than
in Spain, and there is far more liberty in France than in Spain.

INFIDELITY IN ENGLAND.

There is far more Infidelity in England than there was a century
ago, and there is far more liberty than there was a century ago. There
is far more Infidelity in the United States than there was fifty years
ago, and a hundred Infidels to-day where there was one fifty years ago,
and there is far more intellectual liberty, far greater freedom of speech
and action than ever before. A few years ago Italy was a Christian
country to the fullest extent. Now there are a thousand times more
liberty and a thousand times less religion. Orthodoxy is dying.
Liberty is growing.

MR. BALLOU.

Mr. Ballou, a grandson, or grand nephew, of Hosea Ballou, seems to
have wandered from the faith. Asa rule, Christians insist that when one
denies the religion of Christian parents he is an exceedingly bad man,
but when he denies the religion of parents not Christians, and becomes
a Christian, that he is a very faithful, good and loving son. Mr. Bal
lou insists that God has the same right to punish us that nature has, or
that the state has. I do not think he understands what I have said.
The state ought not to punish for the sake of punishment. The state
may imprison, or inflict what is called punishment, first for its own
protection, and, secondly, for the reformation of the punished.
If no one could do the state any injury, certainly the state

11

Would have no right to punish under the plea of protection ; and
if no human being could by any possibility be reformed, then the ex
cuse for reformation could not be given. Let us apply this :- If God
be infinite no one can injure him, Therefore he need not punish any
body or damn anybody or burn anybody for his protection. Let us
take another step. Punishment being justified only on two grounds —
that is, the protection of society and the reformation of the punished —
how can eternal punishment be justified 1 In the first place, God does
not punish to protect himself, and, in the second place, if the punish
ment is to be forever, he does not punish to reform the punished.
What excuse then is left ? Let us still take another step. If instead
of punishment, we say " consequences," and that every good man has
the right to reap the good consequences of good actions, and that every
bad man must bear the consequences of bad actions, then you may say
to the good : — If you stop doing good you will lose the harvest. You
must say to the bad : — If you stop doing bad you need not increase your
burdens. And if it be a fact in nature that all must reap what they
sow, there is neither mercy nor cruelty in this fact, and I hold no God
responsible for it. The trouble with the Christian creed is that God
is described as the one who gives rewards and the one who inflicts
eternal pain. There is another trouble. This God, if infinite, must
have known when he created man exactly who would be eternally
damned. What right had lie to create men, knowing that they were
to be damned ? So much f6r Mr. Ballou.

REV. DR. HILLIER.

The Rev. Dr. Hillier seems to reason in a kind of circle He takes
the ground, in the first place, that " Infidelity, Christianity, science,
and experience all agree, without the slightest tremor of uncertainty,
in* the inexorable law that whatsoever a man sows that shall tie also
reap." He then takes the ground that, " if we wish to get rid of the
harvest, we must not sow the seed ; if we would avoid the result, we
must remove the cause ; the only way to be rid of hell is to stop doing
evil ; that is, and this only, is the way to abolish an eternal peniten
tiary." Very good ; but that is not the point. The real thing under
discussion is this : — Is this life a state of probation 1 and if a man fails
to live a good life here, will he have no opportunity for reformation in
another world if there be one 1 Can he cease to do evil in the eternal
penitentiary ? and if he does, can he be pardoned— can he be released ?
It is admitted that man must bear the consequences of his acts. If
the consequences are good, then the acts are good. If the consequences
are bad, the acts are bad. Through experience we find that certain
acts tend to unhappiness and others to happiness. Now, the only
question is, whether \ve have wisdom enough to live in harmony with
our conditions here ; arid if we fail here, will we have an opportunity
of reforming in another world ? If not, then the few years that we live
here determine whether we shall be angels or devils forever. It seems
to me, if there be another life, that in that life men may do good, and
men may do ovil ; ;ind if they may do good it seems to me that they

!*2

may reform. T do not see why God, if there be one, should lose all
interest in his children simply because they leave this world and go
where he is. Is it possible that an in finite God does all for his children
here, in this poor ignorant world, that it is possible for him to do, and
if he fails to reform them here, nothing is left to do except to make
them eternal convicts ?

REV. MK. HALDEMAN.

The Rev. Mr. Haldeman mistakes my position. 1 do not admit that
"an Infinite God as revealed in nature has allowed men to grosv up
under conditions which no ordinary mortal can look at in all their
concentrated agony and riot break his heart." I do not confess that
God reveals himself in nature as an Infinite God, without mercy. I
do not admit that there is an Infinite Being anywhere responsible for
the agonies and tears, for the barbarities and horrors of this life. I
cannot believe that there is in the universe a being with power to pre
vent these things. I hold no God responsible I attribute neither
cruelty nor mercy to nature. Nature neither weeps nor rejoices. I
cannot believe that this world, as it now is, as it has been, was created
by an infinitely wise, powerful and benevolent God. But it is far
better that we should all go down "with souls unsatisfied " to the
dreamless grave, to the tongueless silence of the voiceless dust, than
that countless millions of human souls should suffer forever. Eternal
sleep is better than eternal pain. Eternal punishment is eternal
reyenge, and can be inflicted only by an eternal monster.

MR. G. A. LOCEY.

Mr. George A. Locey endeavors to put his case in an extremely small
compass, and satisfies himself with really one question, and that is ; —
" If a man in good health is stricken with disease, is assured that a
physician can cure him, but refuses to take the medicine and dies,
ought there to be any escape?" He concludes that the physician has
done his duty ; that the patient wss obdurate and suffered the penalty.
The application he makes is this : "The Christian's 'tidings of great
joy ' is the message that the Great Physician tendered freely. Its ac
ceptance is a cure certain, and a life of eternal happiness the reward.
If the soul accepts are they not tidings of great joy ; and if the soul
rejects, is it not unreasonable on the part of Colonel Ingersoll to try
and sneak out and throw the blame on God?" The answer to this
seems easy. The cases are not parallel. If an infinite God created us
all, he knew exactly what we would do. If he gave us free will it
does not change the result, because he knew how we would use the
free will. Now, if he knew that billions upon billions would refuse to
take the remedy, and consequently would suffer eternal pain, why
create them 1 There would have been much less misery in the world
had he left them dust. What right has God to make a failure ? Why
should he change dust into a sentient being, knowing that that being
was to be the heir of endless agony ? If the supposed physician had
created the patient who refused to take the medicine, and had so
created him that he knew he would refuse to take it, the cases might

19

be parallel. According to the orthodox creed millions arw to be damned
who never heard of the medicine or of the "Great Physician."

REV. OR TALMAGK.

There is one thing said by the Rev. Dr. Talmage that I hardly think
he could have intended. Possibly there has been a misprint. It is
the following paragraph : — " Who (speaking of Jesus) has such an eye
to our need ; such a lip to kiss away our sorrow ; such a dear hand
to snatch us out of the fire ; such afoot to trample our enemies ; such
a heart to embrace all our necessities ? ' What does the reverend
gentleman mean by " such a foot to trample our enemies ? " This, to
me, is a terrible line. But it is in accordance with the history of
the church. In the name of its founder it has " trampled
on its enemies," and beneath its cruel feet have perished the noblest
of the world.

REV. J. BENSON HAMILTON.

The Rev. J. Benson Hamilton, of Brooklyn, comes into this dis
cussion with a great deal of heat and considerable fury. He states
that " Infidelity is the creed of prosperity, bu< when sickness or trouble
or sorrow comes he [meaning the Infidel] does not paw nor mock nor
cry 'Ha! ha!' He sneaks and cringes like a whipped cur, and
trembles and whines and howls " The spirit of Mr. Hamilton is not
altogether admirable. He seems to think that a man establishes the
truth of his religion by being brave, or demonstrates its falsity by
trembling in the presence of death. Thousands have died for false
religions and in honor of false gods. 'I heir heroism did not prove the
truth of the religion, but it did prove the sincerity of their convic
tions. A great many murderers have been hanged who exhibited on
the scaffold the utmost contempt of death ; and yet this courage ex
hibited by murderers has never been appealed to in justification of mur
der. The reverend gentleman tells again the story of the agonies
endured by Thomas Paine when dying ; tells us that he then said that
he wished his work had been thrown into the fire, and that if the devil
ever had any agency in any work he had in the writing of the book
[meaning " The Age of Reason "), and that he frequently asked the
Lord Jesus to have mercy upon him. Of course there is not a word of
truth in this story. Its falsity has been demonstrated thousands and
thousands of times, and yet ministers of the gospel go right on repeat
ing it just the same. So this gentleman tells us that Voltaire was ac
customed to close his letters with the words, "Crush the wretch! '
(meaning Christ). This is not so. He referred to superstition, to re
ligion, not to Christ. This gentleman also says that " Voltaire was
the prey of anguish and dread, alternately supplicating and blasphem
ing God ; that when he died his friends fled from the room, declaring
the sight too terrible to be endured." There is not one word of truth
in this. Everybody who has read the life of Voltaire knows that he
died with the utmost serenity.

VOLTAIRE'S DEATH.
Let me tell you how Voltaire died. He was an old man of eighty

14

four. He had been surrounded by the comforts of life. He was &
man of wealth — of genius. Among the literary men of the world he
stood first. God had allowed him to have the appearance of success.
His last years were filled with the intoxication of flattery. He stood
at the summit of his age. The priests became anxious. They began
to fear that God would forget, in the multiplicity of business, to make
a terrible example of Voltaire. Toward the last of May, 1788, it was
whispered in Paris that Voltaire was dying. Upon the fences of ex
pectation gathered the unclean birds of superstition, impatiently wait
ing for their prey. Two days before his death his nephew went to
seek the cure of Sb. Sulpice and the Abbe Gautier, and brought them
into his uncle's sick-chamber, who was informed that they were there.
"Ah, well," said Voltaire; "give them my compliments and my
thanks."

The abbe spoke some words to Voltaire, exhorting him to pationce.
Tho cure of St. Sulpice then came forward, having announced himself,
and asked Voltaire, lifting his voice, if he acknowledged the divinity
of ow Lord Jesus Christ. The sick man pushed one of his hands
against the cure's coif, shoving him back, and cried, turning abruptly
to the other side : —

" Let me die in peace ! " The cure seemingly considered his person
soiled and his coif dishonored by the touch of the philosopher. He
made the nurse give him a little brushing and went out with the
Abbe Gautier.

" He expired," says Wagniere, "on the 30th of May, 1788, at about
a quarter past eleven at night, with the most perfect tranquillity.
Ten minutes before his last breath he took the hand of Morand, his
valet de chcunbre, who was watching by him, pressed it and said : — -
' Adieu, my dear Morand. I am gone.' These were his last words."

VOLTAIRE AN INTELLECTUAL AUTOCRAT.

From this death, so simple and serene, so natural and peaceful —
from these words, so utterly destitute of cant or dramatic touch —
all the frightful pictures, all the despairing utterances have been
drawn and made. From these materials, and from these alone, have
been constructed all the shameless calumnies about the death of this
great and wonderful man. Voltaire was the intellectual autocrat
of his time. From his throne at the foot of the Alps he pointed
the finger of scorn at every hypocrite in Europe. He was
the pioneer of his century. He was the assassin of superstition.
Through the shadows of faith and fable; through the darkness of myth
and miracle ; through the midnight of Christianity ; through the
blackness of bigotry ; past cathedral and dungeon ; past rack and
stake ; past altar and throne, he carried, with chivalric hands, the
sacred torch of Reason !

THOMAS PAINE'S DEATH.

Lot mo also tell you about the death of Thomas Paino After the
publication of his " Rights of Man " and "Tho Ago of Reason " every
falsehood that malignity could coin and malice pass was given to the

15

world. On his return to America, although Thomas Jefferson, another
Infidel, was president, it was hardly safe for Paine to appear in the
public streets. Under the very flag he had helped to put in heaven
his rights were not respected. Under the Constitution that he had
iirst suggested his life was insecure. He had helped to give liberty to
more than three millions of his fellow -citizens, and they were willing
to deny it unto him. He was deserted, ostracised, shunned, maligned
and cursed. But he maintained his integrity. He died almost alone.
The moment he died the pious commenced manufacturing horrors for
his deathbed. They had his chamber filled with devils, rattling chains,
and these ancient falsehoods are certified by the clergy even of the
present day. The truth is that Thomas Paine died as he had lived.
Some ministers were impolite enough to visit him against his will.
Several of them he ordered from his room. A couple of Catholic
priests, in all the meekness of arrogance, called that they might enjoy
the agonies of the dying friend of man. Thomas Paine, rising in his
bed, the few moments of expiring life fanned into tlame by the breath
of indignation, had the goodness to curse them both. His physician,
who seems to have been a meddling fool, just as the cold hand of Death
was touching the patriot's heart, whispered in the dulled ear of the
dying man : — "Do you believe, or do you wish to believe, that Jesus
Christ is the Son of GocH" And the reply was : — " I have no wish
to believe on the subject." These were the last remembered words of
Thomas Paine. He died as serenely as ever mortal passed away. He
died in the full possession of his mind, and on the brink and edge of
death proclaimed the doctrine of his life.

Every philanthropist, every believer in human liberty, every lover
of the great Repnblic, should feel under obligation to Thomas Paine
for the splendid services rendered by him in the darkest days of the
American revolution. In the midnight of Valley Forge, " The Crisis"
was the first star that glittered in the wide horizon of despair. :We
should remember that Thomas Paine was the first man to write these
words:— "The United States of America."

The Rev. Mr. Hamilton seems to take a kind of joy in imagining
what Infidels will suffer when they come to die, and he writes as though
he would like to be present. For my part, I hope that all the sons and
daughters of men will die in peace ; that they will pass away as easily
as twilight fades to night.

ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY.

Of course when I said that " Christianity did not bring tidings of
great joy, but a message of eternal grief," I meant orthodox Christi
anity ; and when I said that " Christianity fills the future with fire
and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, in
which most of the children of men were to be imprisoned forever," I
was giving what I understood to be the evangelical belief on that
subject. If the churches have given up the doctrine of eternal
punishment, then for one 1 am delighted, and I shall feel that what
little I have done toward that end, has not been done in vain. The

16

Rev. Mr. Hamilton, enjoying my dying agony in imagination, says :
" Let the world wait but for a few years at the most, when death's icy
fingers feel for the heartstrings of the boaster, and, as most of his like
who have gone before him have done? he will sing another strain."

How shall I characterise the spirit that could prompt the writer of
such a sentence? The reverend gentleman "loves his enemies," and
yet he is filled with glee when he thinks of the agonies I shall endure
when death's icy fingers feel for the strings of my heart ! Yet I have
done him no harm. He then quotes, as being applicable to me, a pas
sage from the prophet Isaiah, commencing : " The vile person will
speak villany." Is this passage applicable only to me?

DR. HOLLOWAY.

The Rev. Mr. Holloway is not satisfied with the "Christmas Ser
mon." For his benefit I repeat, in another form, what the Christmas
sermon contains : If orthodox Christianity teaches that this life is a
period of probation ; that we settle here our eternal destiny, and that
all who have heard the gospel and have failed to believe it are to be
eternally lost, then I say that Christianity did not " bring tidings of
great joy," but a message of eternal grief. And if the orthodox
churches are still preaching the doctrine of endless pain, then I say it
would be far better if every church crumbled into dust than that such
preaching and such teaching should be continued. It would be far
better yet, however, if the ministers could be converted and their con
gregations enlightened. I admit that the orthodox churches preach
some things besides hell ; but if they do not believe in the eternity of
punishment they ought publicly to change their creeds. I admit, also,
that the average minister advises his congregation to be honest and to
treat all with kindness, and I admit that many of these ministers fail
to follow their own advice when they make what they call " replies "
to me.

GOOD THINGS ABOUT THE CHURCH.

Of course there are many good things about the church. To the
extent that it is charitable, or rather to the extent that it causes
charity, it is good, To the extent that it causes men and women to
lead moral lives it is good. But to the extent that it fills the future
with fear it is bad. To the extent that it convinces any human being
that there is any God who not only can, but will, inflict eternal tor
ments on his own children, it is bad. And such teaching does tend to
blight humanity. Such teaching does pollute the imagination of child
hood. Such teaching does furrow the cheeks of the best and tenderest
with tears. Such teaching does rob old age of all its joy, and cover
every cradle with a curse !

The Rev. Mr. Holloway seems to be extremely familiar with God.
He says : " God seems to have delayed his advent through all the ages
to give unto the world the fullest opportunity to do all that the human
mind could suggest for the weal of the race." According to this
gentleman, God just delayed his advent for the purpose of seeing what
the world would do, knowing all the time exactly what would be done.

17

Let us make a suggestion : If the orthodox creed be true, then all
people became tainted or corrupted or depraved, or in some way spoiled
by what is known as " original sin." According to the Old Testament,
these people kept getting worse and worse. It does not seem that
Jehovah made any effort to improve them, but he patiently waited for
about fifteen hundred years without having established any church,
without having given them a Bible, and then he drowned all but eight
persons. Now, those eight persons were also depraved. The taint of
original sin was also in their blood. It seems to me that Jehovah made
a mistake. He should also have killed the remaining eight and started
anew, kept the serpent out of his garden, and f urn shed the first pair
with a Bible and the Presbyterian Confession of Faith.

REV. DR. TYLER.

The Rev. Dr. Tyler takes it for granted that all charity and goodness
are the children of Christianity. This is a mistake. All the virtues
were in the world long before Christ came. Probably Mr. Tyler will
be convinced by the words of Christ himself. He will probably re
member the story of the good Samaritan, and if he does he will see that
it is exactly in point. The good Samaritan was not a Hebrew. He
was not one of the " chosen people." He was a poor, "miserable
heathen," who knew nothing about the Jehovah of the Old Testament,
and who had never heard of the " scheme of salvation." And yet,
according to Christ, he was far more charitable than the Levites — the
priests of Jehovah, the highest of the "chosen people." Is it not
perfectly plain from this story that charity was in the world before
Christianity was established 1

A great deal has been said about asylums and hospitals, as though
the Christians are entitled to great credit on that score. If Dr. Tyler
will read what is said in the British Encyclopedia under the head of
" Mental Diseases," he will find that the Egyptians treated the insane
with the utmost kindness, and that they called reason back to its
throne by the voice of music ; that the temples were resorted to by
crowds of the insane, and that "whatever gifts of nature or productions
of art were calculated to impress the imagination were there united.
Games and recreations were instituted in the temples. Groves and
gardens surrounded these holy retreats. Gaily decorate «1 boats some
times transported patients to breathe the pure breezes of the Nile."

So in ancient Greece it is said that " from the hands of the priest
the cure of the disordered mind first passed into the domain of medici e
with the philosophers. Pythagoras is said to have employed music for
the cure of mental diseases. The order of the day for his disciples
exhibits a profound knowledge of the relations of body and mind. The
early morning was divided between gentle exercise, conversation and
music Then came conversation, followed by gymnastic exercise, and
a temperate diet. Afterward, a bath and supper with a sparing allow
ance of wine; then reading, music, and conversation concluded the
day."

So " Asclepiades was celebrated for his treatment of mental disorders.

18

He recommended that bodily restraint should be avoided as much as
possible." It is also stated that " the philosophy and arts of Greece
sp ead to Rome, and the first special treatise on insanity is that of
Celsus, which distinguishes varieties of insanity and their proper
treatment."

" Over the arts and sciences of Greece and Rome the errors and
ignorance of the Middle Ages gradually crept, until they enveloped
them in a cloud worse than Egyptian darkness. The insane were
again consigned to the miracle working ordinances of priests or else
totally neglected. Idiots and imbeciles were permitted to go clothless
and homeless. The frantic and furious were chained in loathsome
dungeons and exhibited for money like wild beasts. The monomaniacs
became, according to circumstances, the objects of superstitious horror
or reverence They were regarded as possessed with demons, and sub
jected either to priestly exorcism, or cruelly destroyed as wizards and
witches. This cruel treatment of the insane continued with little or
no alleviation down to the end of the last century in all the civilised
countries of Europe."

Let me quote a description of these Christians asylums. Public
asylums, indeed, existed in most of the metropolitan cities of Europe,
but the insane were more generally, if at all troublesome, confined in
jails, where they were chained and in the lowest dungeons or made the
butts and menials of the most debased criminals. In public asylums
the inmates were confined in cellars, isolated in cages, chained to floors
or walls. These poor victims were exhibited to the public like wild
beasts. They were often killed by the ignorance and brutality of their
keepers. I call particular attention to the following paragraph :
"Such was the state of the insane generally throughout Europe at the
commencement of this century. Such it continued to be in England
so late as 1815 and in Ireland as 1817, as revealed by the inquiries of
parliamentary commissions in those years respectively." Dr. Tyler is
entirely welcome to all the comfort these facts can give.

Not only were the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians far in advance
of the Christians in the treatment of the mentally diseased, but even
the Mohammedans were in advance of the Christians about seven
hundred years, and in addition to this they treated their lunatics with
great kindness. The temple of Diana of Ephesus was a refuge for
insolvent debtors, and the Theseium was a refuge for slaves. Again,
I say that hundreds of years before the establishment of Christianity
there were in India not only hospitals and asylums for people, but
even for animals The great mistake of the Christian clergy is that
they attribute all goodness to Christianity. They have always been
engaged in maligning human nature — in attacking the human heart — in
efforts to destroy all natural passions.

Perfect maxims for the condubt of life were uttered and re
peated in India and China hundreds and hundreds of years before the
Christian era. Every virtue was lauded and every vice denounced.
All the good that Christianity has in it came from the human heart.
Everything in that system of religion came from this world, and in it

19

you will tind not only the goodness of man but the imperfections of
man — not only the love of man but the malice of man. Let me tell
you why the Christians for so many centuries neglected or abused the
insane. They believed the New Testament, and honestly supposed
that the insane were filled wirh devils.

DR. BUCKLEY.

In regard to the contest between Dr. Buckley, who, as I understand
it, is a doctor of theology — and I should think such theology stood" in
need of a doctor — and the Telegram, I have nothing to say. There
is only one side to this contest ; and so far as the doctor heretofore
criticised what is known as the "Christmas Sermon," I have answered
him, leaving but very little to which I care to reply in his last article.
Dr. Buckley, like many others, brings forward names instead of
reasons — instead of arguments. Milton, Pascal, Elizabeth Fry, John
Howard, and Michael Faraday are not arguments. They are only
names ; and, instead of giving the names, Dr. Buckley should give the
reasons advanced by those whose names he pronounces. Jonathan
Edwards may have been a good man, but certainly his theology was
infamous. So Father Matthew was a good man ; but it was impossible
for him to be good anough to convince Dr. Buckley of the doctrine of
the " Real Presence." Milton was a very good man, and he described
God as a kind of brigadier-general, put the angels in uniform and had
regular battles, but Milton's goodness can by no possibility establish
the truth of his poetical and absurd vagaries. All the self-denial and
goodness in the world do not even tend to prove the existence of the
supernatural or of the miraculous. Millions and millions of the most
devoted men could not, by their devotion, substantiate the inspiration
of the scriptures.

There are, however, some misstatements in Dr. Buckley's article that
ought not to be passed over in silence. The first is to the effect that
I was invited to write an article for the North American Review,
Judge Jeremiah Black to reply, and that Judge Black was improperly
treated. Now, it is true that I was invited to write an article, and
did write one ; but I did not know at the time who was to reply. It
is also true that Judge Black did reply and that my article and his
reply appeared in the same number of the Review.

Dr. Buckley alleges that the North American Review gave me an
opportunity to review the judge, but denied to Judge Black an oppor
tunity to respond. This is without the slightest foundation in fact. Mr.
Metcalf, who at that time was manager of the Review, is still living
and will tell the facts. Personally I 'had nothing to do with it, one
way or the other. I did not regard Judge Black's reply as formidable,
and was not only willing that he should be heard again, but anxious
that he should. So much for that.

DR. FIKLD ;vM> <: I- A DSTON E.

As to the debates with Dr. Field and Mr. Gladstone, I leave them
to say whether they were not fairly treated. Dr. Field, by his candor,
by his fairness, and by the manly spirit he exhibited, won my respect

20

and love. Most ministers imagine that any man who differs from
them is a blasphemer. This word seems to leap unconsciously from
their lips. They cannot imagine that another man loves liberty as
much and with as sincere a devotion as they love God. They cannot
imagine that another prizes liberty above all gods, even if gods
exist. They cannot imagine that any mind is so that it places Justice
above all persons, a mind that cannot conceive even of a God who is
npt bound to do justice. If God exists, above him, in eternal calm,
is the figure of Justice. Neither can. some ministers understand a
man who regards Jehovah and Jupiter as substantially the same, with
this exception — that he thinks far more of Jupiter, because Jupiter
had at least some human feelings. I do not understand that a man
can be guilty of blasphemy who states his honest thoughts in proper
language, his object being, not to torture the feelings of others, but
simply to give his thought— to find and establish the truth.

Dr. Buckley makes a charge that he ought to have known to be
without foundation. Speaking of myself he said: " In him the laws
to prevent the circulation of obscene publications through the mails
have found their most vigorous opponent." It is hardly necessary
for me to say that this is untrue. The facts are that an effort was
made to classify obscene literature with what the pious call " blasphe
mous and immoral works." A petition was forwarded to Congress to
amend the law so that the literature of Freethought could not be
thrown from the mails, asking that, if no separation could be made,
the law should be repealed. It was said that I had signed this peti
tion, and I certainly should have done so had it been presented to
me. The petition was absolutely proper.

HE DISAGREED WITH THEM.

A few years ago I found the petition and discovered that, while it
bore my name, it had never been signed by me. But for the purposes
of this answer I am perfectly willing that the signature should be
regarded as genuine, as there is nothing in the petition that should not
have been granted. The law as it stood was opposed by the Liberal
League — but not a member of that society was in favor of the circula
tion of obscene literature, but they did think that the privacy of the
mails had been violated, and that it was of the utmost importance to
maintain the inviolability of the postal service. I disagreed with
these people and favored the destruction of obscene literature, not
only, but that it be made a criminal offence to send it through the
mails. As a matter of fact, I drew up resolutions to that effect that
were passed. Afterward they were changed, or some others were
passed, and I resigned from the League on that account. Nothing can
be more absurd than thac I was, directly or indirectly, or could have
been, interested in the circulation of obscene publications through the
mails ; and I will pay the premium of $1,000 a word for each and
every word I ever said or wrote in favor of sending obscene publica
tions through the mails. I might use much stronger language I
might follow the example of Dr. Buckley himself. But I think I have

'2\

said enough to satisfy all unprejudiced people that the charge is
absurdly falso.

EULOGY OP WHISKEY.

Now as to the eulogy of whiskey. It gives me a certain pleasure to
read that even now, and I believe the readers of the Telegram would
like to read it once more ; so here it is :

"I send you some of the most wonderful whiskey that ever drove the skele
ton from the feast or painted landscapes in the brain of man. It is the
mingled souls of wheat and corn In it you will find the sunshine and the
shadow that chased each other over the billowy fields ; the breath of June,
the carol of the lark, the dew of night, the wealth of summer, and autumn's
rich content, all golden with imprisoned light. Drink it, and you will hear
the voices of men and maidens sing the ' Harvest Home,' mingled with
the laughter of children. Drink it, and you will feel within your blood the
startled davns, the dreamy, tawny dusks, of many perfect days. For forty
years this liquid joy has been within the happy staves of oak, longing to
touch the lips of men."

I requote this for the reason that Dr. Buckley, who is not very
accurate, made some mistakes in his version.

EULOGY OF TOBACCO.

Now, in order to show the depth of degradation to which I have
sunk in this direction, I will confess that I also wrote a eulogy of
tobacco, and here that is :

"Nearly four centuries ago Columbus, the adventurous, in the blessed
Island of Cuba, saw happy people with rolled leaves between their lips.
Above their heads were little clouds of smoke. Their faces were serene
and in their eyes was the autumnal heaven of content. These people were
kind, innocent, gentle and loving. The climate of Cuba is the friendship of
the earth and air, and of this climate the sacred leaves were born -the
leaves that breed in the mind of him who uses them the cloudless, happy
days in which they grew These leaves make friends and celebrate with
gentle rites the vows of peace. They have given consolation to the world.
They are the companions of the lonely — the friends of the imprisoned — of
the exiled of workers in mines— of fellers of forests — of sailors on the
desolate seas. They are the givers of strength and calm to the vexed and
wearied minds of those who build with thought and dream the temples of
the soul They tell of hope and rest. They smooth the wrinkled brows of
care— drive fear and strange, misshapen dreads from out the mind, and fill
the heart with rest and peace. Within their magic warp and woof some
potent, gracious spell imprisoned lies that, when released by fire, doth
softly steal within the fortress of the brain and bind in sleep the c iptured
sentinels of care and grief. These leaves are the friends of the fireside, and
their smoke, like incense, rises from myriads of happy homes. Cuba is the
smile of the sea."

There are some people so constituted that there is no room in the
heaven of their minds for the butterflies and moths of fancy to spread
their wings. Everything is taken in solemn and stupid earnest.
Such men would hold Shakespeare responsible for what FalstafY said
about "sack," and for Mrs. Quickly's notions of propriety. There is
an old Greek saying which is applicable here: "In the presence of
human stupidity, even the gods stand helpless."

L>2

John Wesley, founder of the Methodist church, lacked all sense of
humor. He preached a sermon on "The Cause and Cure of Earth
quakes." He insisted that they were caused by the wickedness of
man, and that the only way to cure them was to believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ. The man who does not carry the torch of humor is
always in danger of falling into the pit of Absurdity.

DR. CHARLES DEEMS.

The Rev. Dr. Charles Deems, pastor of the Church of the Strangers,
contributes his part to the discussion. He took a text from John, as
follows : " He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil
sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was
manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." According
to the orthodox creed of the Rev. Dr. Deems all have committed sin,
and consequently all are of the devil. The doctor is not a metaphysi
cian. He does not care to play at sleight-of-hand with words He
stands on bed rock, and he asserts that the devil is no Persian myth,
but a personality, who works unhindered by the limitations of a
physical body, and gets human personalities to aid him in his works.
According to the text, it seems that the devil was a sinner from the
beginning I suppose that must mean from his beginning, or from the
beginning of things. According to Dr Deems' creed, his God is the
creator of all things, and consequently must have been the creator of
the devil. According to the scriptures, the devil is the father of lies,
and Dr. Deems' God is the father of the devil — that is to say, the
grandfather of lies. This strikes me as almost "blasphemous." The
doctor also tells us " that Jesus believed as much in the personality of
the devil as in that of Herod or Pilate or John or Peter." That I
admit. There is not the slightest doubt, if the New Testament be
true, that Christ believed in a personal devil — a devil with whom he
had conversations ; a devil who took him to the pinnacle of the temple
and endeavored to induce him to leap to the earth below. Of course
he believed in a personal devil. Not only so, he believed in thousands
of personal devils. He cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalene. He
cast a legion of devils out of the man in the tombs, or, rather, made a
bargain with these last-mentioned devils that they might go into a
drove or herd of swine, if they would leave the man. I not only
admit that Chn'st believed in devils, but he believed that some devils
were deaf and dumb, and so declared. Dr. Deems is right, and I hope
he will defend against all comers the integrity of the New Testament.

HOW DOES HE KNOW IT ?

The doctor, however, not satisfied exactly with what he finds in the
New Testament, draws a little on his own imagination. He says :
" The devil is an organising, imperial intellect, vindictive, sharp,
shrewd, persevering, the aim of whose works is to overthrow the
authority of God's law." How does the doctor know that the devil
has an organising, imperial intellect 1 How does he know that he is
vindictive and sharp and shrewd and persevering ? If the" devil has an
" imperial intellect," why does he attempt the impossible ? Robert

Burns shocked Scotland l>y saying of the devil, or, rather, to the devil,
that he was sorry for him, and hoped he would take a thought and
mend. Dr. Deems has gone far in advance of Burns. For a clergy
man he seems to be exceedingly polite. Speaking of the " Arch
Enemy of God " —of that "organising, imperial intellect who is seeking
to undermine the church" — the doctor says: "The devil may be
conceded to be sincere." It has been said: " An honest God is the
noblest work of man,'' and it may now be added : " A sincere devil
is the noblest work of Dr. Deems."

But, with all the devil's smartness, sharpness, and shrewdness, the
doctor says that he cannot write a book ; that he cannot deliver
lectures [like myself, I suppose], edit a newspaper [like the editor of
the Telegram], or make after-dinner speeches ; but he can get his
servants to do these things for him." There is one thing in the doctor's
address that I feel like correcting (I quote from the Telegram's
report) : " Dr. Deems showed at length how the Son of God, the
Christ of the Bible — not the Christ of the lecture platform caricatures
— is operating to overcome all these works." I take it for granted
that he refers to what he supposes I have said about Christ, and for
fear that he may not have read it, I give it here :

"And let me say once for all, that for the man Christ I have infinite
respect. Let me say once for all, that the place where man has died for
man is holy ground. And let me say once for all, that to that great and
serene man I gladly pay the tribute of my admiration and my tears. He
was a reformer in his day and an Infidel in his time. He was regarded as a
blasphemer, and his life was destroyed by hypocrites, who have, in all ages,
done what they could to trample freedom and manhood out of the human
mind. Had I lived at that time I would have been his friend. Such is my
feeling for the man. For the theological creation I have a different feeling."
I have not answered by name each one who has attacked me.
Neither have I mentioned those who have agreed with me. But I do
take this occasion to thank all, irrespective of their creeds, who have
manfully advocated the right of free speech, and who have upheld the
Telegram in the course it has taken. I thank all who have said a
kind word for me, and I also feel quite grateful to those who have
failed to say unkind words. Epithets are not arguments. To abuse is
not to convince. Anger is stupid and malice illogical. And, after all
that has been said by way of reply, I still insist that orthodox Christi
anity did not come with "tidings of great joy" — but with a message
of eternal grief.