* I am well aware that the Protestant sects of Christianity repudiate this charge of the intolerant and persecuting spirit of Christianity in general, and vainly attempt to shift the whole onus and odium upon the Church of Rome. They tell us that Christianity itself is not persecuting--that it is not responsible for having reddened the earth with blood --but that this was all done contrary to the spirit and teachings of Christianity by men who were not really Christians. We deny it. We take the position that Christianity itself is essentially intolerant and persecuting in spirit; and, we take the New Testament itself to prove it. We take Christ's alleged words as reported there, and Paul's alleged words as reported there, and can thereby abundantly sustain our charge. "He that believeth not shall be damned." "A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition, reject." What is that but the quintessence of bigotry and intolerance? "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." How kind! "Think not that I come to send peace on earth, etc., etc" Scores of passages could be quoted from the New Testament of similar import, and the Old Testament is worse yet, for it recommends putting even your wives or brothers to death should they try to persuade you to worship their God.--See Deut. 13, 6, 7 and 8. REPLY TO "BYSTANDER." I approach this part of my prescribed duty with some hesitation, and not a little reluctance. _Bystander_ is brilliant, learned, independent, and honest; and for these qualities, though differing from him on some important subjects, I entertain a respect and esteem amounting to affection. I hope, therefore, that I may not write a word here having even the semblance of discourtesy; for of that sort of treatment the gentleman in question has had a full share since he honored Canadians by casting his lot amongst us. For the benefit of some readers who, possibly, may not have seen it, I may say that _The Bystander_ is a "Monthly Review of Current Events," published in Toronto by Messrs. Hunter, Rose & Co., and written by a certain distinguished literary gentleman, as referred to above, whose name I would like to give here only that I feel in courtesy bound to respect the "impersonality of journalism," the protection of which the gentleman in question has the right, and with good reason, to claim. The last three issues of _The Bystander_ (for April, May and June) have each a paper on Col. Ingersoll, his lectures, and cognate subjects; the general tone of which is very liberal, but, at the same time, containing strictures upon Mr. Ingersoll and his teachings which I consider unfair and unjust (unintentionally no doubt), and to which I here propose briefly to reply.