agency, then you think it ridiculous, although the principle is
exactly the same and the only difference is that of degree. But I see
that I must be more general in my statements or I will not get far.
You bring a host of other charges against us, either directly or by
implication. You say that yours is a pure and simple religion that
can be understood by uneducated people as well as by philosophers.
Here we get at the very heart of the difference between us. It is
true that your doctrines are _very simple,_ but that is their chief
demerit. _They_ are simple, but the facts that they attempt to deal
with are very complex. To declare that religious problems are simple
is to go counter to the expressed opinions of the great thinkers of
all ages. Such questions as evil, good, life, immortality, free will,
God, and a host of others, are decidedly complex.

They are largely inscrutable and have always been considered so. And
yet all the complex realities of life and death which have defied the
theologians and philosophers of all ages, you now tell us are very
simple, and you carry the simple solution around with you only too
glad to give it free to everybody. Why is it that all of the
thousands of worried and distressed souls don't come flocking to you?
Why is it that the philosophers and thinkers don't come rushing in
from all directions, to get from you the truths they have so long
sought after? Why is it that the uneducated masses do not come to you
and accept your simple doctrines which they can so easily understand?
I know that you are ready with a charge of ignorance, prejudice,
self-interest, etc., but I claim that as a rule your charges do not
charge. You, believing in an all-wise, all-good and all-powerful God,
who is Truth itself, must believe in the triumph of truth; and here I
agree with you. I believe that just as soon as truth is brought in
contact with error the latter will have to vanish just as sure as the