INGERSOLL'S SECOND REPLY.

Peoria, Nov. 2d, 1877.

To the Editor of the New York Observer:

You ought to have honesty enough to admit that

you did, in your paper of July 19th, offer to prove

that the absurd story that Thomas Paine died in

terror and agony on account of the religious opinions

he had expressed, was true. You ought to have

fairness enough to admit that you called upon me

to deposit one thousand dollars with an honest man,

that you might, by proving that Thomas Paine did

die in terror, obtain the money.

You ought to have honor enough to admit that

you challenged me and that you commenced the

controversy concerning Thomas Paine.

You ought to have goodness enough to admit

that you were mistaken in the charges you made.

You ought to have manhood enough to do what

you falsely asserted that Thomas Paine did:--you

ought to recant. You ought to admit publicly that

you slandered the dead; that you falsified history;

that you defamed the defenceless; that you deliber-

517

ately denied what you had published in your own

paper. There is an old saying to the effect that

open confession is good for the soul. To you is

presented a splendid opportunity of testing the truth

of this saying.

Nothing has astonished me more than your lack

of common honesty exhibited in this controversy. In

your last, you quote from Dr. J. W. Francis. Why

did you leave out that portion in which Dr. Francis

says _that Cheetham with settled malignity wrote the

life of Paine?_ Why did you leave out that part in

which Dr. Francis says that Cheetham in the same

way _slandered Alexander Hamilton and De Witt

Clinton?_ Is it your business to suppress the truth?

Why did you not publish the entire letter of Bishop

Fenwick? Was it because it proved beyond all

cavil that Thomas Paine did not recant? Was it

because in the light of that letter Mary Roscoe,

Mary Hinsdale and Grant Thorburn appeared un-

worthy of belief? Dr. J. W. Francis says in the

same article from which you quoted, "_Paine clung to

his Infidelity until the last moment of his life!'_ Why

did you not publish that? It was the first line im-

mediately above what you did quote. You must

have seen it. Why did you suppress it? A lawyer,

doing a thing of this character, is denominated a

518

shyster. I do not know the appropriate word to

designate a theologian guilty of such an act.

You brought forward three witnesses, pretending

to have personal knowledge about the life and death

of Thomas Paine: Grant Thorburn, Mary Roscoe

and Mary Hinsdale. In my reply I took the ground

that Mary Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale must have

been the same person. I thought it impossible that

Paine should have had a conversation with Mary

Roscoe, and then one precisely like it with Mary

Hinsdale. Acting upon this conviction, I proceeded

to show that the conversation never could have hap-

pened, that it was absurdly false to say that Paine

asked the opinion of a girl as to his works who had

never read but little of them. I then showed by the

testimony of William Cobbett, that he visited Mary

Hinsdale in 1819, taking with him a statement con-

cerning the recantation of Paine, given him by Mr.

Collins, and that upon being shown this statement

she said that "it was so long ago that she could not

speak positively to any part of the matter--that she

would not say any part of the paper was true." At

that time she knew nothing, and remembered noth-

ing. I also showed that she was a kind of standing

witness to prove that others recanted. Willett Hicks

denounced her as unworthy of belief.

519

To-day the following from the New York _World_

was received, showing that I was right in my

conjecture:

Tom Paine's Death-Bed.

_To the Editor of the World_:

Sir: I see by your paper that Bob Ingersoll dis-

credits Mary Hinsdale's story of the scenes which

occurred at the death-bed of Thomas Paine. No

one who knew that good lady would for one moment

doubt her veracity or question her testimony. Both

she and her husband were Quaker preachers, and

well known and respected inhabitants of New York

City, _Ingersoll is right in his conjecture that Mary

Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale was the same person_. Her

maiden name was Roscoe, and she married Henry

Hinsdale. My mother was a Roscoe, a niece of

Mary Roscoe, and lived with her for some time. I

have heard her relate the story of Tom Paine's dying

remorse, as told her by her aunt, who was a witness

to it. She says (in a letter I have just received from

her), "he (Tom Paine) suffered fearfully from remorse,

and renounced his Infidel principles, calling on God

to forgive him, and wishing his pamphlets and books

to be burned, saying he could not die in peace until

it was done." (Rev.) A. W. Cornell.

Harpersville, New York.

520

You will notice that the testimony of Mary Hins-

dale has been drawing interest since 1809, and has

materially increased. If Paine "suffered fearfully

from remorse, renounced his Infidel opinions and

called on God to forgive him," it is hardly generous

for the Christian world to fasten the fangs of malice

in the flesh of his reputation.

So Mary Roscoe was Mary Hinsdale, and as

Mary Hinsdale has been shown by her own admis-

sion to Mr. Cobbett to have known nothing of the

matter; and as Mary Hinsdale was not, according to

Willet Hicks, worthy of belief--as she told a false-

hood of the same kind about Mary Lockwood, and

was, according to Mr. Collins, addicted to the use of

opium--this disposes of her and her testimony.

There remains upon the stand Grant Thorburn.

Concerning this witness, I received, yesterday, from

the eminent biographer and essayist, James Parton,

the following epistle:

Newburyport, Mass.

Col. R. G. Ingersoll:

Touching Grant Thorburn, I personally know him

to have been a dishonest man. At the age of ninety-

two he copied, with trembling hand, a piece from a

newspaper and brought it to the office of the _Home

Journal, as his own_. It was I who received it and

521

detected the deliberate forgery. If you are ever go-

ing to continue this subject, I will give you the exact

facts.

Fervently yours,

James Parton.

After this, you are welcome to what remains of

Grant Thorburn.

There is one thing that I have noticed during this

controversy regarding Thomas Paine. In no instance

that I now call to mind has any Christian writer

spoken respectfully of Mr. Paine. All have taken

particular pains to call him "Tom" Paine. Is it not

a little strange that religion should make men so

coarse and ill-mannered?

I have often wondered what these same gentle-

men would say if I should speak of the men eminent

in the annals of Christianity in the same way. What

would they say if I should write about "Tim"

Dwight, old "Ad" Clark, "Tom" Scott, "Jim"

McKnight, "Bill" Hamilton, "Dick" Whately, "Bill"

Paley, and "Jack" Calvin?

They would _say_ of me then, just what I _think_ of

them now.

Even if we have religion, do not let us try to get

along without good manners. Rudeness is exceed-

ingly unbecoming, even in a saint. Persons who

522

forgive their enemies ought, to say the least, to

treat with politeness those who have never injured

them.

It is exceedingly gratifying to me that I have com-

pelled you to say that "Paine died a blaspheming

Infidel." Hereafter it is to be hoped nothing will be

heard about his having recanted. As an answer to

such slander his friends can confidently quote the

following from the _New York Observer_ of November

ist, 1877:

"WE HAVE NEVER STATED IN ANY FORM, NOR

HAVE WE EVER SUPPOSED THAT PAINE ACTUALLY RE-

NOUNCED HIS INFIDELITY. THE ACCOUNTS AGREE IN

STATING THAT HE DIED A BLASPHEMING INFIDEL."

This for all coming time will refute the slanders of

the churches yet to be.

Right here allow me to ask: If you never supposed

that Paine renounced his Infidelity, why did you try

to prove by Mary Hinsdale that which you believed

to be untrue?

From the bottom of my heart I thank myself for

having compelled you to admit that Thomas Paine

did not recant.

For the purpose of verifying your own admission

concerning the death of Mr. Paine, permit me to call

your attention to the following affidavit:

523

Wabash, Indiana, October 27, 1877.

Col. R. G. Ingersoll:

Dear Sir: The following statement of facts is at

your disposal. In the year 1833 Willet Hicks made

a visit to Indiana and stayed over night at my father's

house, four miles east of Richmond. In the morn-

ing at breakfast my mother asked Willet Hicks the

following questions:

"Was thee with Thomas Paine during his last

sickness?"

Mr. Hicks said: "I was with him every day dur-

ing the latter part of his last sickness."

"Did he express any regret in regard to writing

the 'Age of Reason,' as the published accounts say

he did--those accounts that have the credit of ema-

nating from his Catholic housekeeper?"

Mr. Hicks replied: "He did not in any way by

word or action."

"Did he call on God or Jesus Christ, asking either

of them to forgive his sins, or did he curse them or

either of them?"

Mr. Hicks answered: "He did not. He died as

easy as any one I ever saw die, and I have seen

many die in my time." William B Barnes.

Subscribed and sworn to before me Oct. 27, 1877.

Warren Bigler, Notary Public.

524

You say in your last that "Thomas Paine was

abandoned of God." So far as this controversy is

concerned, it seems to me that in that sentence you

have most graphically described your own condi-

tion.

Wishing you success in all honest undertakings, I

remain,

Yours truly,

Robert G. Ingersoll.

The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 05 (of 12) Dresden Edition—Discussions · 第 68 / 68 题