REPLY OF DR. THOMAS,

Points Wherein the Doctor and Colonel Agree and Differ-A Fair and Candid Rejoinder.

[As the Pulpit of the Centenary Church was supplied by a visiting candidatą, the Rev. Dr. Thomas contributed the following letter :]

I have no desire to differ from Col. Ingersoll where it is possible for us to agree. The disposition to antagonize — to seek to find points of difference, rather than points of agreement, has, perhaps, often led both parties in religious. debates to magnify each other's real or supposed errors. We should rather seek to know as far as we may the exact truth, and give it full credit wherever found. This seems to be the spirit in which the lecturer sought to stand before his great congregation. I would reciprocate this as fully as I can, and say, "Let us see wherein we can agree?" Let us say that the time for meditation has arrived in the profound questions of thought; not of compromise of principle or fact, but of harmony where harmony is possible. Such a spirit will do much to soften the severity of discussions, and it will be a mental and moral help to all parties.

And first, in reference to Col. Ingersoll's plea for the right and the duty of all to think and to reason. He says: "I belong to the republic of intellectual liberty, and only those are good citizens of that republic who depend upon reason and upon persuasion, and only those are traitors who resort to brute force." In this we can agree. I belong to the same, and I indorse that statement. I agree with him also in not thinking that "people who disagree with me are

bad people," and that mankind are generally "reasonably honest;" and that most "ministers are endeavoring to make this world better." I agree with him when he claims the right to think, and for the two reasons that "I like, too, and and I can't help it." I like to think, and I can't help it; and will add, that I would not "help it" if I could." But here we should distinguish between proper freedom to think, and what is loosely called "free thought." Freedom to think should be the right of all; but there is not, and there cannot be, any such thing as "free thought,” unless it is in a bad sense. And for this reason, that all thought is conditioned, first, by the laws of thought; and secondly, by the facts, and the things about which we think. All normal mental freedom must submit to these natural limitations. And in this I think Mr. Ingersoll will fully agree with me.

In the second place, I agree with much that the Colonel has to say about the good that is in the Christian religion. He says: "There are many good things about it. I believe that. He says: "I will never attack anything that I believe to be good, and will never fail to attack anything I honestly believe to be wrong." In this we can agree, also. I will join hands with the Colonel in defending what I believe to be right, and in opposing what I believe to be wrong. But I cannot agree with him when, in the next sentence, he says:

We have, I say, what they call the Christian religion, and, I find just in proportion that nations have been religious, just in the proportion they have gone back to barbarism. I find that Spain, Portugal, Italy are the three worst nations in Europe. I find that the nation nearest infidel is the most prosperous-France.

I think the fairness in debate for which the Colonel claims to stand, should have led him to discriminate be-tween religion and superstition, or the abuse of religion. He is a friend of liberty, but he would not think it fair to charge liberty with all the abuses and the wrongs wrought

in the name of liberty. The Colonel indorses the teachings of Jesus as to purity of heart, and mercy, and justice, and forgiveness. We certainly gather from his lecture that he believes these to be the essence, the very spirit of religion, and he certainly would not claim that the more a nation had of these, the worse it would be; and, if not, it is hardly fair to charge the bad state of Spain, Portugal, and Italy to religion. Why not say that in those countries the spirit of the teachings of true religion has been corrupted and turned to base purposes.

In the third place, I can agree with much that the lecturer says about Christ. I was glad to read his clear, inanly words, when he said:

And let me say here, 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, to that great and serene man I gladly pay the homage of my admiration and my tears. He was a reformer in His day. He was 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 out of the human mind. Had I lived at that time I would have been his friend, and should He come again, He would not find a better friend than I will be.

Ingersoll's New Departure-What the Doctor says About it.

This seems to be a new departure, or at least a step be yond where the Colonel has taken his stand in previou lectures; though I do not recall a single instance where he has said anything against the life of Christ—that is, His life as a man. My heart is with him in those noble senti. ments. I am glad he spoke so freely and so sincerely. Wit him I feel that the "place where man dies for man is hol ground;" and with him I pay to that "serene man th homage and the admiration of my tears." I think with the Colonel, also, that Jesus was regarded by the Church of that day as an "infidel” and a “blasphemer," and that He

was put to death by those who claimed to be the only relig. ious people of the time, and who looked upon everybody who did not accept their teachings and mode of life as sinners. But then I have to get the facts of that great and good life from the very books of the New Testament that the Colonel labored so hard to cast suspicion upon as being unreliable, and not written till "hundreds of years after," and as coming from confused and conflicting manuscripts. Speaking further of Christ, the lecturer says:

For the theological creation I have a different feeling. If He was, in fact, God, He knew there was no such thing as death. He knew that what we call death was but the eternal opening of the golden gates of everlasting joy; and that it took no heroism to face a death that was simply eternal life.

I will admit that some of the "theological" conceptions of Christ may have served to confuse the mind; but then, in the calmest exercise of that very reason for which my excellent friend makes so strong a plea, I am compelled to think that there was in that life something more than human. Approach it where you will; touch it at any point from the "conception" to the last scenes of the cross, and the resurrection, and the ascension, and it all seems to be of a piece; it is consistent with itself throughout; it moves along on its own unique and majestic plane. We have the picture before us; we have the marvelous facts; and for me it is easier a less strain upon the reason to accept the account as given; to accept the, to us, supernatural in that life, than to account for it in any other way. How could the unlettered disciples-plain, common men-have created such a character? How could such marvelous results have flown from the life of one who was only a man? Wiser and better than other men, but yet only a man. I am in worse mental trouble when I attempt to put away the divine, the supernatural in Christ, and the