did, then she was declared a witch, and was either dragged through ponds and ditches until life was extinct, or she was hanged or burned, as the decision might be.

But finally the people became so incensed at Hopkins' cruelty that they concluded to try his own test upon him. They tied him in a sheet and threw him upon the water, and he floated; hence he was declared a witch or wizard, and he was accordingly executed upon the spot. If the analogy is carried out in Comstock's case, there are many who, having a most bitter recollection in connection with him, will not be sorry. It is believed by many that his days of usefulness are over, and that he ought to be allowed to depart in peace.

In one respect Hopkins was far superior to Comstock; Hopkins was not guilty of the meanness of decoying and entrapping his victims by duplicity, intrigue, and lies, that he might have the pleasure of torturing them. He waited for others to enter a complaint, and did not sneak around as a spy, and lie in wait for those whom he wished to subject to his power. It would be well were Anthony Comstock as honorable a man as was Matthew Hopkins.

A few additional quotations from the press, bearing upon Comstock's manner of conducting his business, may not be inappropriate here. The Philadelphia "Record" spoke as follows:

"Mr. Comstock has been trying to trap unwary sinners by forging letters and buying forbidden wares. It strikes us as bad policy to use as instruments for reforming offenders men who are meaner than the offenders themselves. People judge a cause by the character of its advocates, and principles by their exponents; and the cause of morality must suffer seriously when such men as Comstock publicly espouse it and become known as its ministers. He is meaner by a few degrees than the agents of our Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and this is saying much against Comstock, but we have his own confession in proof of our assertion. He is a self-convicted sneak and hypocrite, without

moral honor, and must naturally do the cause of morality far more harm than good."

Bonner's "New York Ledger" in connection with the arrest of Dr. Sara B. Chase, said:

"Is Deception Justifiable?—Our sympathies are with Anthony Comstock, or any one else, in every proper effort which can be made to punish the parties who deal in prohibited articles; but if the following extract from a report in the 'Tribune' be true, we think Mr. Comstock acted in. to say the least, a very questionable manner in the instance referred to:

"The Tribune' states that on Tuesday Mr. Comstock went to the house of Mrs. Chase, ostensibly to buy an article she was forbidden by law to sell-having previously bought one of the same kind. He told her he wanted to make the purchase for a friend. Her face, continues the report, lighted up at once, and she turned about promptly and led the way to her office where she was arrested.

.

We'

"Is there any necessity for practicing such deceit, in order to arrest a person engaged in a nefarious business? think not. At any rate, we should think an honorable, high

toned man would find it difficult to reconcile with his own feelings of self-respect the resorting to such measures, even or account of their supposed necessity in the abatement of a great evil."

Oliver Johnson's "Orange Journal" (N. J.) contained the following:

"Mr. Anthony Comstock is entitled to the thanks of every lover of social purity for his efforts to suppress the traffic in obscene literature and to expose the murderers of unborn children. In this work the more skillful his devices, the heavier his hand, the better. But he should have a care lest his persecutions of the guilty degenerate into persecutions of the innocent. There are honest differences of opinion among men upon some very important and delicate physiological questions, and it is not for Mr. Comstock to make himself a doctrinaire, to suppress by violence the right of speech and of

printing upon such subjects. He must remember that it is possible for very good people to hold opinions contrary to his own, and contrary even to those generally held in the community, upon physiological subjects; and if he would retain the good will of the community he should learn how to discriminate between the agents and abettors of impurity, and well-meaning people, however mistaken, who are laboring, according to their best light, to promote the public welfare."

Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll expressed his opinion of Comstock in these words, "I regard Comstock as infamous beyond expression. I have very little respect for those men who endeavor to put down vice by lying; and very little respect for a society that would keep in its employ such a leprous agent."

It is greatly to be regretted that in the last quarter of the nineteenth century such a base specimen of humanity as Anthony Comstock has been selected to be the protector of public morals, to be a champion of the Church, and a censor of the mails, of medical and physiological literature, and of Radical and Freethought publications. If free America is to have a censor of the press and of her mails, it would certainly be desired that a man might be selected to discharge the duties of the office who possessed some qualifications for the position, and who exhibited, at least, an average amount of morality, decency, honesty, and truthfulness. Can members of the Christian society which for years has employed this man and made him their active agent and representative, expect to add to their own credit or to that of the Christian religion by employing and sustaining such a despicable character as Anthony Comstock-the Matthew Hopkins of the nineteenth century?

RECAPITULATION.

FOR the convenience of the reader a brief summary of the most conspicuous acts of the characters treated in the foregoing pages will here be given. As the first few characters are regarded, more or less, as myths, therefore there is not any very marked conduct to be mentioned in connection with them. First:

Jesus. His miracles. His deity. His moral teachings. He did not respect the rights of property. As a communist. He taught submission to wrong. His professions to pardon sin. He exhibited an imperfect sense of justice.

Jesus and Jesuism. The progress of Jesuism.
Peter and the great compromise.

The Four Evangelists. Evidence that all the gospels had one origin. The writers do not claim to be eye-witnesses. What was the character of the early Christians? Christianity always intolerant. Christian admissions against the Scrip

tures.

Paulism versus Jesuism. The early Christian Church.

Paul was disagreeably self-conceited and boastful. In his great desire to get followers, he became a hypocrite, was all things too all men; and he justified dissembling and lying if they contributed to the glory of God. His notions concern ing women have caused much of the oppressive tyranny under which the female sex in all Christian countries have suffered during the last eighteen centuries.

Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Papias, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Origen, early Fathers of the Church, are chiefly famous for the writings attributed to them. The Catholic Church is founded more upon their writings than upon the Bible; but modern research is fast

1092

proving that their writings are nothing more than a record of the legends and traditions floating about during the early years of the Christian Church, mixed with a due proportion of pagan "mysteries," changed to suit the purposes of the new religion.

St. Victor was one of the first bishops of Rome, and began the movement which ultimately placed the bishops of Rome at the head of the Christian Church.

St. Anthony is famous chiefly on account of his laziness and filthiness, wearing nothing but a sheepskin, which he never changed, and never washed his body.

St. Paul the Hermit was the founder of the Christian system of monkery. He was a fanatic who lived more like a

beast than a human being.

Stephen L., bishop of Rome, was notorious for his quarrelsome disposition, being constantly embroiled in bitter contentions with his brother bishops.

Constantine placed Christianity upon the throne. An execrable parricide, he put to death the two Licinii, the husband and son of his sister. He did not even spare his own children; and the Empress Fausta, the wife of this monster, was strangled in her bath by his orders. Upon consulting the pagan priests of the empire as to what expiation he should make for his crime, he was repulsed with horror by the priests, who exclaimed, "Far from hence be parricides, whom the gods never pardon." After this a Christian promised him pardon for his crimes if he should become purified in the waters of baptism, so the emperor became a Christian.

Eusebius, the father, or rather the manufacturer of ecclesiastical history, was superstitious, crafty, a time-server, a partisan, and a flatterer.

The works of Eusebius are a remarkable instance of the prostitution of great talents in the cause of mental degradation and slavery.

Callistus was a notorious thief and defaulter, who by a strange combination of circumstances was elevated from the workhouse to the Roman see.