The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1881-11-24
BLACK VS.. INGERSOLL.
The Eminent Judge EXcOriateS
the Great lntidel.
A Caustlo RelOinder to the Leader oi the
unbelievers-Th Judges Reasonsi
:EFor the Faith Within Him.

...eI
anv aDparent interest IN thaJ nulioel vi
~ North American Review which con-
tainad what its editor called "A Debate
on the Christian Religion IL seellls
right therefore, that youIahu, you
pIpaSe. your readerS-snOulu hIuN WY
it is that the number last out appears
with an article from Mr.. Ingersoll uh-
accomnanied by any remarks OF mine'
,vos not n volunteer in TINS business
Tho editor of the Review made TWO
iOurneys to my house ana DeSouSnt mt
fo furnish him with retuIatlon ol
MIR. mgersolrs blaSphemouS doctrines
which he said We're eNeryWneIe P;uL
,linT raIipiOus teachers and leading
nannia astray. | did not believe that MT.
TnTprsoI's utterances were at all harm
fmi and if the faith of the Christian
world was in danger, was unworthy
and unfit to be it's defender. Ihere Wtr
i'm nv opinion, ten thousand prOleSsl0hal
theOiogians who could ana WOulu uo II
halter and were, in fact, doing III most
effactualIv at that very time by their
words and their deeds. But TINS editor
was absurd enough to insist that II l dld
not answer Mr.. mgersOll he could not
hs answered at all, and it would thence
he inferred that the Christian system
was false. Moved by his lmpOrIuhlLIe
and influenced by regard Tor the
wishes of certain friends whose loves
I might not DROP" agreed that l would
anpend to Mr.. IngersOlps article my own
Oninion of its fallacy, and thus make
the two together as fit as could tOr
publication in a decent magazine.
From the beginning it was distinctly
understood that my defense was TO pe
printed in the same numOer WIN tlle
accusation The editor was (Or al leaSI
nTatendpd to bel a firm believer i'll
christianity, and he would not for the
world Du6lish mgersOlPs poisonous
stuff without putting the antldOte riSnt
beside ito do so would not only athicC
his conscience hut greatly inJure the
character of his Review.
At the time of the publication agreed
that if Mr. IngersOll had any tault 10
find with the result it might seem cow
ardIy to refuse him another chance on
tha same terms [ was not afraid OF any
new assault he might make II he was
not afraid Of my defense. ,
Three months afterward nifty pages oI
the fOulest and falsest libel that ever
was written against COD OF man was
sent to me. | was entirely Wiling 70
treat il as | had treated the other; Jnat
is Give il the answer | thought 1t de-
served and let both 90 together. But IL
came when | was disabled by an injury
from which could not hope to get Wei
for some weeks, and | 20 nOIlueu IHe
editor To my surprise | was informed
IllII llD tOllLl tlhllt lA'll' w NNA'''
criticism of mine or ranybOdy else WOulu
be allowed to accompany this new eltu-
sion of filth. 1t was to be printed lmlne-
diateIv. and would occupy 50 mucll
spacp that none could be spared Tor tnt
other side. | proposed that II It's oulh
cOulI not be reduced 50 as To admit OF
an answer in the same numbtf l,
sH1uId be postponed until a reply could
be made ready for publication IN thg
next succeeding number. rms ana
also divers other offers were reJet.e l0L
the express reason tlaJ MT. lhSeI7OI
would NOS consent FInaing ihe
Review controlled 10y him to suit hlm-
self. did not think was bound to 60
further.
ulyinr in "A future number, but chat was
iI1r the privilege had bargained ioi
nor The duty agreed To perform. be
sides. if [ would write an answer, Whdl
confidence could have that they would
not suppress ir? 4 promise OF theirs
express or implied, is not, IN my esLlhla
tiOn. worth straw If they have no IN
terest in breaking it. Their object was
not what they prOteSsad-tO get Tile
truth yindicated-but to make senSa
tiOn and increase the sale OF their paper
am especially blamable for allow
ING myself to be taken i'll by them OF
this occasion, because the same treach
erOus concern has basely betrayed m'
once before. After tracking me out ant
hunting me down to get an article IRON
me on the Great Fraud of 1876, subJec
then of much general interest, anC
making by its publication, as the pro
DriplOr himself told me, not less thal
ten thousand dollars, they handed IN
and nv friends, living and dead, over u
be covered with irrelevant ISLANDERS Ol
a bargain that should not be permltte
IL. ,y,f hair
phlet to which was driven could no
reach half the readers of the Review
and the other half probably believe
this day that | and certain Other mel
some of them the best and WorthlesI L
the land, were guilty of the most atrC
ciOus crimes known to any law, OWN
or human. 1t was weak IN me not I
prosecute those libellers i'll court
Justice: still weaker to cOndOne th
Offense and put myself in the way
being similarly maltreated again. Pei
hans. also, it was unwiSe at the Degll
ning to look for better behavior frOl
adyenturers conducting a magazlI
without avOwed convictions OF primo
pies and without capacity to contrlDu1
an original thing of their own excel
rags and lampblack.
II woud be pleasant to believe thi
some professional theOlOgian or oth'
believer in the truth may be permltt'
to address the readers of the magaZlI
i'm question. But | expect not. 1t seen
probable that the North American K
view will be prostituted entirely to u
service of atheism. :,
This is no personal wrangle with N
Tngprson. He has said nothing Offensl
about me. His Indignation at fndil
himself confronted, not by prOft
sional theolOgian, but by a layman WI
applied the judicial test to his assertlo
was natural and expressed with tOleI
bIe moderation. On the other hand
tried and | think tried successfully,
confine myself rigidly to the square
sue between US. A just or even an l
teIligent criticism could not be ma
without some reference to his menl
peculiarities, which, with habits
Shallow thinking and rash talking, ma
him an utterly incompetent judge OF I
subject he pretended to argue. Bu
found the proofs of this between !
four corners of his own paper. The
also. I learned that he was without
acknowledged standard of right
wrong. 1t was legitimate to notice Il
because it accounted satisfactorily
his other utterances.
Neither is there any question OF pal