"If Christ should come to Chattanooga, where would He go?" Now, Brother Brougher, stand up. If He should come, where would He go? He commanded that His Gospel should be made free and His ministers should travel without purse or scrip. If He were hunting for His friends, would He call upon those who declare that His promises have fallen to the ground unfulfilled, and that the blessings do not follow the believers? He has placed Apostles and Prophets in the church, with a decree that they should remain until we all come to a unity of the faith. Would He call those His friends who declare "they are no longer needed and are not to remain until we all come to a unity of the faith?" He told the generation to whom He came (1800 years ago) that their great sin consisted in worshiping dead Prophets, while they persecuted those who believed in living oracles. Would He call on those who engage in the same business today? He never resorted to abuse for an argument. If He came would He love those who do? He was not a character assassin. Would He love those who are? But stay, we do not know where He would go, or whom He would call upon, because when He was here before, He said: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance," and He might say that His mission was not entirely finished, and we cannot tell where He would go, but you might possibly see him.
Now, Brother Brougher, just a word. Did you ever listen to an argument against "Mormons" from the standpoint of Scripture and reason? No, you never have and you never will. Did it ever occur to you that it was a most cowardly ambition which induces you to attack a party in a place and at a time when retaliation would have been anything but decent? If so, will you grant us the privilege of defending ourselves from the pulpit and before that congregation which were so disgraced by your tirade on Sunday evening?
Now, in conclusion, let me say that we are not here to stir up strife, but we propose to defend ourselves whenever attacked; so I close, wishing you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
BEN. E. RICH.
Chattanooga, Tenn., Dec. 25, 1899.
Rev. (?) J. Whitcomb Brougher, Chattanooga, Tenn.
My Dear Sir:—Your second installment of abuse, falsehood and misrepresentation, called "Is Mormonism Anti-Christian," I see, by the News of Jan. 1, was duly delivered, as per previous announcement. As some well-meaning people might take your performance in earnest, I hope you will take it in good part if I make a brief reply before the incident is closed. I am glad that this is a country of free speech, free thought, and religious liberty, even though narrow-minded religious bigots cannot comprehend this basic principle of our heaven-born government, and sometimes abuse it. American history tells us that during the revolutionary days of America's struggle for independence the British once had Gen. Marion and his little band of struggling patriots surrounded; that the British, in order to tantalize the starving patriots, fired wheat from their cannon into the American camp, and as I have authentic evidence of having descended from one of those hungry defenders of the flag, and also that I have proof, beyond truthful contradiction, that my progenitor was once a member of George Washington's body guard, I trust you will have no serious objections to my calling myself an American by birth, and entitled to a small portion of the freedom of speech and thought guaranteed to Americans by our constitution. Should there be any objections upon the possible ground that your progenitors possibly have been on the other side of that fight, I pray you to let family feuds, for this occasion at least, be buried. No people on earth love liberty and true Americanism more than my people, and no people realize to a greater extent that the favorite weapons brought against truth are, generally, ridicule and billingsgate; and in a vain attempt to successfully answer my former letter you liberally employed this unsavory method with the hope of laughing the case out of court. We have not been accustomed to throwing mud in order to bolster up our cause, but in this case, if I should stoop to a little ridicule, avoiding slush, I hope you and the public will pardon me. I understand from parties who witnessed your performance last Sunday night, that the recital of your little piece would have done much credit to a Punch and Judy show; but, shorn of its stagey effects and set in cold type, without even a moving picture accompaniment, I hope that I may be forgiven if I do not fully appreciate the force of your masterful (?) logic. I have no doubt that the thinking people of this city can, without any assistance, distinguish between inflated sophistic bombast, and logic; but a little airing and brushing always takes away the mold, removes the rubbish and gives things a more healthful appearance. Now, as the physician said to his patient, "just hold still, and I will not insert the knife deeper than is absolutely necessary."
You claim to be a true representative of the meek and lowly Master, who said He "came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." You are loud in condemning "us" as sinners; yet you said, in your letter to the News, announcing your attack upon me and my faith, that you were not here to convert the Latter-day Saints, that the work was not worth the candle. How very Christ-like! What a humble follower of the Lamb, and how faithfully you endeavor to follow the example of the Master, who said there was more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over ninety and nine that needed no repentance; but pardon me—I had forgotten that we are now living in modern times, and are told by such eminent divines as yourself that the Bible does not mean what it says.
In the same letter, mentioned above, you also declare you are not here for the purpose of proselyting, which means, of course, that you do not intend to waste your time by calling anyone to repentance. In view of this, may I ask, is your mission here simply to love Jesus for $1,800 per year, and not for a blessed cent less? Great man! Paul told Timothy that the time would come when they would heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and I suppose it becomes necessary, in order that these words might be fulfilled, for some one to be engaged in tickling ears, even though it becomes rather expensive. Of course I understand that the march of progression changes things, and perhaps this doctrine of Christ, that "the physician is not for the whole but for the sick," has evolved as completely as the Golden Rule, for we now have it, at least to a very large extent, "Do others or they will do you, and do it first." The theory is just the same as it used to be, but it is only, as you say, "symbolic or a figure of speech," the practical part having been done away with—"we have no need of thee."
Through force of habit (we presume), in your brief note to the News you again charged us with creeping into houses and leading captive silly women, laden with sins, etc. Knowing it impossible to furnish proof, you hide behind the miserable subterfuge that you have only time to sound the key of warning. Our challenge still holds good that you cannot point to a single instance.