To be effective, criticism must be aimed at the _heart_ of an argument. A man's life is not in his hat, which could be knocked off, or in his clothes--which could be torn in places by his assailant without in the least weakening his opponent's position. It is the blow that disables which counts. To charge that we have said 'Gospel,' where we should have said 'Epistle,' or 'Trullum' instead of 'Trullo'; that it was not Barnabas, but Nicholas who denied the Gospel Jesus, and that there were variations of this denial, does not at all disprove the fact that, according to the Christian scriptures themselves, among the apostolic followers there were those to whom Jesus Christ was only a phantom. Milman, the Christian historian, states that the belief about Jesus Christ "adopted by almost all the Gnostic sects," was that Jesus Christ _was but an apparent human being, an impassive phantom,_ (_History of Christianity._ Vol. 2, P. 61). Was ever such a view entertained of Caesar, Socrates or of any other historical character? On page 28 of _The Debate_ we say: "The Apostle John complains of those....who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." To this the clergyman replies: "The Apostle John never made any such complaint. Critical scholarship is pretty well agreed that he did not write the epistles ascribed to him." We have a lecture on "How the Bible was Invented," and this clergyman's admission that at least parts of the bible _are_ invented is very gratifying. In a former communication, this same clergyman tried to prove that the Apostle John's complaint does not at all imply a denial of the historical Jesus. In his recent letter he denies that the apostle ever made such a complaint. John did not write the epistles, then, which the Christian church for two thousand years, and at a cost of millions of dollars, and at the greater sacrifice of truth and progress has been proclaiming to the world as the work of the inspired John! The strenuous efforts to get around this terrible text in the "Holy Bible," show what a decisive argument it is. Every exertion to meet it only tightens the text, like a rope, around the neck of the belief in the historical Jesus. Our desire, in engaging in this argument, is to turn the thought and love of the world from a mythical being, to humanity, which is both real and present. On page 22 of _The Debate,_ we say: "St. Paul tells us that he lived in Jerusalem at a time when Jesus must have been holding the attention of the city; yet he never met him." To this the clergyman replies: "Paul tells us nothing of the kind. In a speech which is put into the mouth of Paul"--_put into the mouth of Paul!_ Is this another instance of forgery? John did not write the epistles, and Paul's speech in the Book of Acts was put into his mouth! Will the clergyman tell us which parts of the bible are _not_ invented?