3.ADGER..nD. ^^.\'>f ^^ ^fli^ce ^/r , DEC 13 1899 BX 9225 .A25 A4 ; Adger, John B. 1810-1899. My life and times, 1810-1899 NO, tx^i' ivi''' MY LIFE AND TIMES, 1810-1899. JOHN B. ADGEE, D. D. RICHMOND, VA.: The Presbyterian Committee of Publication. COPYKIGHT, 1899, BT JAMES K. IIAZEK, Secretary of PxiblimUon. I'KINTED BY WHITTET & SUEPPEUSON, Richmond, Va. PREFACE. This Autobiography deserves, and doubtless will re- ceive, a hearty welcome at the hands of a discriminating and appreciative public. The reader will readily per- ceive by glancing over the Table of Contents that it is much more than a simple detail of private life ; it is the history of a very important and influential branch of the Church of Christ, in her struggles to maintain the faith once delivered to the saints, as that church was called, in the providence of God, to deliver her testimony during the century now rapidly drawing to its close. The author saw the light of day during the first decade of the nine- teenth century, and closed his eyes in death when but two years remained of the last decade. It was written, not during his youth and inexperience, nor yet in the middle period of life, when his energies were expended in the heat of battle, but after the hand of God had been laid upon him, and through physical infir- mities his soul had been called into the chamber of afflic- tion to commune in secret with the Father of mercies and the God of all grace. Thus, whilst rapidly ncaring the haven of eternal rest, he entered upon this work of review- ing the storms of life. His course was almost run, the goal of a finished and successful race was just within his grasp, when he delivered this dying testimony, and, like the Psalmist, "showed thy strength unto this generation and thy power to every one that is to come.". It must therefore impart a quickened interest to these pages when we reflect that they were written with eternity in view, 4 PREFACE. looking backward over the troubled past; also forward into a glorious future. When the light of nature was dying and the light of the celestial city was dawning, he paused in the midst of Jordan to erect this monument to the glory of God, as a token to those who should come after. That pen which he liad so diligently used in life to propagate and defend the truth, and so tenaciously held in his closing hours, dropped from the faithful hand only when the last summons came, and the ink was scarcely dry when his spirit took its flight. And yet he had not fully accomplished all that was planned. "Chapter XI., Providential Dealings — Full Account of Revision," it will be noted, has been left "unwritten." The decree had gone forth, "Seal up those things . . . and write them not." Although this book was written during the closing years of its venerable author, yet his mental faculties had been most remarkably preserved ; so that we have the re- sult of his fully ripened powers, chastened by affliction and thoroughly disciplined by long years of faithful ap- plication and diligent use. This consideration has an im- portant bearing upon that very large section of the book, embracing two chapters on "The Controversies of My Times." The bent of his mind, the many years spent in the faithful, earnest, and diligent study of Ecclesiastical Polity, to the teaching of which in the Theological Semi- nary he had devoted many years in the very prime of life, furnished him with unusual qualifications for this calm review of those controversies. Truly, he seemed to have been qualified and called of God to w^rite these chapters before he could say, "I have finished my course." This feature of the work has been noticed by others. The Rev. Dr. ITazcn, of Richmond, Va., has written: "Its chief value will be found in the light which it throws upon the critical periods of the history of the Presbyte- PKEFACE. O rian Chnrcli during tlie century. ISTo man was more familiar with the notable controversies of the whole pe- riod, nor better able to give the history of them ; no man more fully imderstood the causes leading to the division of the old church; and no man was more active in the organization of the Southern Presbyterian Church and its agencies than was Dr. Adger ; and no one has given to all questions that have stirred the church, from its or- ganization to the present time, a more earnest and intelli- gent consideration than he. . . . So that there is need of just such a review of the history of those times, with the testimony of one who, as much as any one, was familiar with the inside history of the Church." The Rev. Dr. Palmer, of Xew Orleans, La., says of the work : "Four or five of the earlier chapters of the proposed volume were kindly submitted to my perusal by the revered author, which led me to urge upon him the com- pletion and ]:)u])lication of the work. Dr. Adger was dis- tinguished for the honesty and earnestness of his convic- tions ; and as the last years of his prolonged life were given to the task, the public has every assurance of his fidelity to the truth in the statement of all the issues in the controversies of his day. Its exceeding timeliness at the present juncture cannot be overestimated." Aside, however, from this feature of the volume, there will be a peculiar charm to many readers in turning these pages and tracing the developments of God's providence in the "Life" of the author, from his cradle to his grave. Surely, it will be edifying to the pious heart of the de- vout reader to note the windings of this subtle stream of a life so full of various incidents, of abounding grace, and of triumphant faith. To the young, it will be a tonic ; to the aged, a cordial ; to those still battling for truth, it will serve to gird them anew for the strife, with unalterable resolve to fight on till death shall secure a crown of vie- 6 PREFACE. tory over all falsehood, in the presence of him who is the King of Truth, the Head of the Church, and the Saviour of Sinners. There are many thousands of God's dear children shut in by the hand of bodily infirmity ; to such, what treasures of joy may be discovered in this miveiling of the life of one whom the Father loved, and whom there- fore he chastened. Jas. L. Martin. Palmyka, ]\Io. co:nte]^ts. CHAPTER I. P^oE. OuK Ancestry, ........ 9 1689—1810. CHAPTER II. My Childhood and Early Youth, . . . .41 1810—1832. CHAPTER III. ACADEIVIY AND CoLLEGE LiFE, . . . . . .56 1824—1828. CHAPTER IV. Theological Seminary Life. — Our Marriage and Sail- ing TO Smyrna. — My Wife's Ancestry, ... 70 1829—1834. CHAPTER V. Life Among the Armenians, ... . . 90 1834— 184G. CHAPTER VI. Visit to America for a Year, but My Return was Not Allowed, and What Followed, . . . .130 1846—1859. CHAPTER VII. Five Years' Work as Missionary to the Negroes in Charleston, . . . . . . . .164 1847-1851. 8 CONTENTS. CHAPTER VIII. pagk. Retirement from Negro Work. — Dr. Girardeau Suc- ceeds.— Eyes Recuperate from Five Years' Farm Life. — Called to Theological Seminary, . . 201 1852—1857. CHAPTELi IX. Literary Work. — W^riting. — Editing — Publishing. — Seminary Life. — Calvin's Institutes, . . . 227 CHAPTER X. Reminiscences of the War, ...... 327 CHAPTER XL Providental Dealings. — Full Account of the Revision, 350 (Unwritten. ) CHAPTER XIL— Part I. The Controversies of My Times, . . . . .351 1801—1861. CHAPTER XIL— Part II. Controversies of Science with the Word of God, . . 412 1884—1891. APPENDIX A. The Condition of Missions Among the Armenians in the Year 1896, GG7 APPENDIX B. The Armenian Crisis in Turkey. — The Massacre of 1894, 673 MY LIFE AND TIMES. CHAPTER I. Our Axcestry. 1689-1810. M Y rATHER claimed that our ancestors fought at &^ Derry. He Avas speaking to his daughter Jane Anne, who was ambitious of an honorable ancestry, and he said, "Your ancestors fought at Derry till they were lousy, and that is honor enough for you." He was not a man to make such a claim without knowing well the grounds on which he based it. He may have intended that this honor came to us in his father's line ; or that it came to us in his mother's line ; or that it came to us in botli. He may also have intended that it came to us in the line of our mother's ancestors. It is possible that each one of these lines was represented among the heroic defenders of Londonderry. There are people of all three of these lines now in both Antrim and Derry. My grand- mother was a Crawford, and she had connections living in Columbia who could trace the family history back through five or six generations. This might bring them nearly or quite back to the time Londonderry was be- sieged. Macaulay tells us that the inhabitants were Anglo-Saxon, but witli the Englishry, as he calls them, were a good many Scotch. At the commencement of the siege, whilst the authorities hesitated, thirteen young ap- prentices, all of Scotch descent, took on them to close the gates against a detachment from the Irish army who had appeared and demanded entrance. That night messen- gers were sent to the Protestants of the neighboring counties to come to the city's defence. Hundreds of horse and foot obeyed immediately. These of course were 10 MY LIFE AMD TIMES. Scotch people as well as Eng-lisli, and we may ))e sure tliorc were Crawfords ainoui;' tlioin, for the garrison within shortly became seven thousand arms-bearing men. "But," says Macaulay (Vol. III., p. 153), "the whole world could not have furnished seven thousand men bet- ter qualified to meet a terrible emergency, with clear judgment, dauntless valor, and stubborn patience. They were all zealous Protestants." He also says (page 113), "They were indeed not all of one country, nor of one church ;" but, according to him, "one common antipathy bound all these Protestants together — an antipathy to the Irish race and the Popish religion." But in 1GS9 amongst the reinforcements assembled at Chester under Schomberg for the relief of Londonderry and ready to depart for Ireland there were thousands of one class of men who had more of the antipathy just men- tioned than either English or Scotchmen. Macaulay tells us (page 325) that four regiments accompanied Schom- berg from amongst the French Refugees, who fled to London after the Revocation of the Edict of Xantes. These were three regiments of foot soldiers and one of cavalry. The cavalry regiment "was raised by Schomberg himself. The foot regiments were raised chiefly by the Marquess of Ruvigny. His abilities, his experience, and his munificent kindness made him the undisputed chief among the refugees. He was himself eighty years of age, but his two sons, both men of eminent courage, devoted their swords to the service of William. The younger son, who bore the name of Caillemote, was appointed colonel of one of the Huguenot regiments of foot. The two other regiments of foot were commanded by La Melloniere and Oambon, officers of high reputation. It is respecting these French exiles that ]\Licaulav says they were among the best troops under Schomberg's com- mand. He says (page 337) that "the dislike with which the most zealous English Protestant regarded the House of Bourbon and the Church of Rome was a lukewarm feeling when compared with that inextinguishable hatred which glowed in the bosom of the persecuted, dragooned, expatriated Calvinist of Languedoc. The Irish had :ilready remarked that the French heretic neither gave OUR ANCESTKY. 11 Tior took quarter." Accordin^'ly we find that at the hat- tie of the Boyne, where William commanded, when Schomberg g:ives the word, and Solmes' Blues move into the river followed by Londonderry and Enniskillen, it is Oaillemot who crosses next at the head of his long- column of French Refugees, followed by the main body of Eng- lish infantry and the Danes. Xow we know that some five hundred thousand of Louis' best subjects fled to Holland and to England when he revoked the Edict of Xantes. Many of them settled in London. These exiles carried with them remarkal)le industry, economy, and peculiar skill in various mechani- cal arts. ]\Iany of them were French manufacturers of various branches. It can hardly be doubted that some of Schomberg's soldiers would remain in Ireland after the close of the war by the flight of James to Paris. These would link to Ireland some of their brethren whom they liad left behind in London. How natural that many of these should prefer to the crowded streets of London a residence in the beautiful region of ISTorth Ireland, when they and their brethren who had served under King \Yil- liam would be sure to find a warm welcome among their English and Scotch fellow Protestants. And how natural that thus many more should be attracted thither from F^rance itself to set up silk and linen factories in Ulster. The Rev. Dr. Henry Quigg, a Presbyterian minister of Conyers, Ga., is a native of the Xortli of Ireland, and writes me that he heard a great deal about the siege of Derry from his mother when he was a boy. Her people were engaged in that terrible conflict. Dr. Quigg has long been an earnest student of the history of LHster. He is a very high authority in respect to Irish antiquity, and he says that "it is very certain that Schomberg, who fell at the battle of the Boyne, brought over a large body of French Protestant soldiers, who fought the battles of William III., of glorious fame and immortal memory, in Ireland. Very many of these French remained in Ire- land, as they had no country to call their own." "The persecuted Protestants came to Ulster in great numbers and established manufactories of various kinds in the <'ounties of Antrim, Down, and Derrv. Ulster became 12 MY J.IFE AND TIMES. the iratlierinii- g-round of those persecuted for conscience* sake in tlie diiferent parts of Europe, but specially in France and Holland. They engaged in all kinds of man- ufacturing, which I am satisfied embraced linen as well as silk." Dr. Quigg speaks of the settlement of the refugees in Ulster aboiit two hundred years ago. We might naturally expect to find that some descendants of these people should still be found in that province. Their names, especially, and their other characteristics should point them out. It is thus in South Carolina with the descendants of the Huguenots. Accordingly there is in Ulster at this day a considerable number of persons whose name has as fully the French shape as the well-known name Huger. But in our country neither that French name nor many others like it, as for instance Legare, have retained the French pronunciation. It is just so with the name of the persons in Ireland whom I refer to. It is spelt in three different ways, all pronounced exactly alike, but not pronounced in French fashion. All this looks as if the Ulster people were in this case handling the name of foreigners. The name referred to I have never found either in English or Scotch history. It looks distinctively like a French name, and it may point oiit the descendants of French people. It certainly does not jjoint out the descendants of English people, nor yet the descendants of Scotch people, and certainly those it does point out are not the descendants of the Irish. In Ulster this name is sometimes spelt Edger, xVdgar, Adger, but it is always pronounced one way. The argument then for our partial French origin stands thus. It seems to be certain that two hundred years ago there were many French Protestants settled in Ulster. It also seems to be certain that they established linen manufactures there. It seems to be probable that there are many descendants of these people there who still retain their French name, and in some degree their blood. But it is ahs-olutchj certain that after the lapse of eighty years, that is, at least one hundred and twenty years ago, there was a linen manufactory and bleaching green owned and operated in Dunean, County Antrim, Prov- ince of Ulster, and that the owner stamped that French OUR ANCESTRY. 13 name upon the linen he produced. Xow that man was certainly my grandfather, James Adger, and to make the conclusion still more complete and positive, my father is known to have claimed that his ancestors came over from France to Ireland. He said to my sister Jane Anne, "My people were not Scotch ; they were French." The fourth and the fifth statements just made I cannot set aside. The fifth is testimony from ample intelligence and unimpeachable veracity. Yet, although one element of the paternal blood was really French, it always paid due honor to its sister element, which was Scotch-Irish. I remember well how great was my father's admiration oi William 11. Crawford, of Georgia. He was certainly a very great man, filled many important offices for the State of Georgia, and but for a coalition in the House of Repre- sentatives at Washington, between the friends of his op- posing candidates, Clay and Adams, he would have been elected President of the United States. He was beyond all comparison my father's preference, which I have often heard him express. But no doubt the name and blood of the Crawfords had something to do with this. It was in the year 1838 that my father took me and my brother James to the north of Ireland. The places I remember best are P)elfast, The Giants' Causeway, Ran- dallstown, and eight miles from Randallstown, Dunean. I remember also Toome Bridge, one mile from Dunean, with its little hotel where the sign that hung out in front had on it the picture of a bloody hand cut off at the wrist. But I do not remember what chieftain's hand or what bloody scene it represented. Toome Bridge is famous for its eels, and riding past there in the morning we engaged lodgings for the night and supper. Such a supper of Irish eels and Irish potatoes, both of finest quality, I never ate before or since. But my father's main object was that we might go and visit our grandfather's grave at Dunean. ]\Ly grandfather Avas, as said before, a linen manufac- turer. He had his bleaching green at Dunean. The orig- inal stamp which he put on the linen he made is now in the possession of Ellison Adger Smyth, given to him by my sister Jane Anne. It is made of a plate of solid brass, 14 MY LIFE AND TIMES. into which are cut tlie names James Adger, Dunean, An- trim, and it has a nicely turned wooden handle. This stamp put into blue ink was then pressed by the hand upon every piece of linen cloth. There is a memorandum on a little, old yellow fragment of paper, by whom written does not appear, which reads thus, "James Adger died March the 25th day, half an hour after six in the morn- ing, aged 41 years!^ Died March 25th, 1783." On the back of this little memorandum is written in my father's hand, "When J. Adger died." He "left his widow well to do." These are the names of his children: Jane, who married Charles Kidd ; Betsey, and three sons, William, James and Robert. This wdiole visit of mine to Ireland, including Duncan, and the grandfather's grave, is indistinctly impressed on my memory. I had left my work at Smyrna, which was uppermost in my mind. Moreover, I was looking forward to a separation for years from my wife, whose health re- quired her to return with my parents to Charleston. I prefer, therefore, to borrow what follows from the nar- rative of my nephew, Ellison Adger Smyth, who visited the home of our ancestors last summer (1896). He says, "After leaving the railroad station at Randallsto^ra, and seeing no teams, T turned back to ask questions of a police- man. Quite a crowd had gotten off the train, and not finding the officer, I went up to two men who had gotten oif, and asked about Moneynick and then about Duncan and the Adgers. The elder gentleman, whose name is Frederick McCuUough, who was well-dressed and ap- peared to be a man of culture and refinement, said he lived in Duncan village, and his mother was an Adger, and his father was the late rector of the Episcopal Church at Duncan. I said to him, 'Mv mother was an Adger.^ 'Indeed V he said, 'and how so V I told him, and he said, *Yes,' he knew^ some of the family lived in the Southern States. He urged me to stay all night with him, and oifered to show me all around, and hunt up my kin. The other man, aged about thirty-five, was John C. Stewart, who had married ]\rcCullough's sister's daughter, a grand- daughter of an Adger. In reply to my question McCul- lough said the name was spelt Adcjar, Edgcr and Adger, OUK ANCESTRY. 15 all one family, and all pronounced -as we do. I hired a jannting car, and Mr. Stewart went with us, first to Moneynick, and thence to Dunean, There we visited, first, the Presbyterian church and graveyard, but found no tombstones over seventy-five years old. The church was a modern building in fine order, and Stewart said here the great Dr. Cook was ordained. We went on then to the Episcopal church, a venerable stone edifice, but much smaller, and Stewart, who is a Presbyterian, says the congregation is small. The church-yard is very large, and has been the burial place for many generations. Here on one side, near the church, I found the Adger burial ground. Xear the centre of the group I found this : HERE LIES THE BODY OF JAMES ADGER, WHO Died March 25th, 1783, AGED 41 TEARS. "The stone is erect, in good condition, the marble fine, seven or eight inches thick. The grave is sodded over, and in good repair. Tlie old graveyard is much over- grown with grass and tall weeds, and we had to make our way through this growth in order to find the stone wdiich we sought. The fia'ure S in the vear 1783 is the onlv part in the inscription hard to make out. There were some weeds on the grave itself; these I cut off, and left the grave in good shape." He adds, ''On one side of your grandfather's grave was an old stone to John Edger, who died 1701, aged sixty- three years; next to that Robert Edger, 1702. On the other side of your grandfather's tomb is one to John Edger, of Cargan, 1878, aged ninety years, and his wafe Xancy, 1885, aged ninety-one years." Here, then, Ellison Adger Smyth found two grave- stones bearing the name of Edger, one of which lacks only four and the other only five of being two hundred years old. One of these men died at the age of sixty-three ; perhaps the other may have been of the same age. Now, the Revocation of the Edict of ]^antes was in 1685, six- teen years before the death of one, and seventeen before the death of the other of these men. Thev mav both of 16 MY LIFE AND TIMES. thcni have been Huguenot refugees, who fought at the siege of Derry in 16S9, and subsequently with William of Orange at the battle of the Bo\Tie. ]\Iy nephew said Mr. McCullough laughed at the idea of his mother's peo- ple being French. He said they were all from Scotland. But Mr. McCullough might easily be mistaken on this point. How many people in the upper part of South CJar- olina could tell where their ancestors were living two hun- dred and twenty years ago ? If I should ask any one of them of more than ordinary intelligence to tell me whether his great-great-great-grandfather in 1675 lived in Eng- land, or in Scotland, or in Wales, or in France, or in Hol- land, he would certainly laugh more than Mr. McCullough did because I was asking him what he would consider such a silly question. I cannot suppose that much more historical intelligence prevails to-day in the north of Ire- land than we find here in the north part of South Carolina amongst our Scotch-Irish population. My nephew next sought for the old Duncan Flax Mill. He says, "The little Stone ]\[ill, built partly of stone and partly of concrete, is still there. The name given it by (sverybody is 'The Old Mill.' The place where the wheel stood can be pointed out, and the tail race is separate and distinct from the stream ; it is arched over and the road passes over it, and over the bridge across what they call Duncan River, but what we would call a creek. The peo- ple all say that the old tail race has been there for over a hundred years. It is still left undisturbed. jSTo water passes through it, but it leads to the river backing up under the mill building. It is eight or ten feet wide, and a man can walk under it by stooping." ''The house is now occupied by Patrick Mclntyre, a blacksmith. He showed me the old dam site and tail race, and where the wheel was placed, and said that his father before him had lived in this building for over sixty years." Moneynick, where my father was born November 2, 1777, is now a very small hamlet, with hardly a decent dwelling house, although it has two little flax mills, spin- ning the flax, but not weaving. They are run by steam, and the steam is got by burning the straw of the plant. OUR ANCESTRY. 17 Dimean is still a respectable village. My nephew says, ''It has two churches, a school-house, and one store and a settlement of farmers' houses built of stone. In fact, I did not see a wooden building in Ireland that I remember. Most are stone or concrete. Some families live there, but spelling the name Edger." His account of the Old Mill at Dunean ends wdth this statement, ''All the linen sheetings, which are the plain linen goods, not table cloths, that I have seen, are stamped in blue with a little hand stamp, like the one I have. For years, however, printed tickets with pictures on them have been gradually introduced for all cloths. The linen mills and most of the cotton mills have stone floors, and the help I saw, fully seventy-five per cent, were bare- footed in the mill." After the death of my grandfather, his widow married again. Her second husband's name was Kobert Rodgers. lie had been the foreman of the Dunean Mill. He soon ran through her property, being too fond of whis- key. In a little more than ten years, viz., 1793, our grand- mother left Ireland for this country, accompanied by her two sons elames and Robert, her daughter Betsey, also her intemperate husband Rodgers, and their four little girls, Esther, Margaret, Mary and Isabella, the last named be- ing an infant. They had a very long passage, as was nsual in those days, namely, sixteen weeks and three days, arriving in I^ew York January, 1794. The other son,Wil- liam Adger, had married young and emigrated previously, coming to South Carolina. His wife's maiden name was McCrory, which is the Irish or Scotch-Irish way of writ- ing Rodgers or Rogers. I do not know, but suspect that my grandmother's second husband belonged to that family. The voj^age from the other side of the Atlantic was a very different affair one hundred years ago from what it is now. Inferior ships, inferior navigators, very far in- ferior accommodations for passengers, and a long passage always, and great suffering. Food and water always ran short, and sometimes gave out entirely. I heard my father tell of a pig being slaughtered on the deck and how 18 MY LIFE AND TIMES. a rain-storm coining on soon after, all efforts were gladly made to catch every drop that fell, and some of the water they were thankful in their great extremity to drink showed signs of the pig's blood, and bristles too. On the third day after their arrival in Xew York the infant Isabella died and was bnried in what nsed to be Dr. Spring's chnrch-yard, the old ''Brick Chnrch," where now, I think, the Xew York City Post Office stands. Of the other three little girls, who all lived and grew up, Esther married in Fairfield District, S. C, where her brother William lived. At his house all three of them seem to have spent some time while children, or growing up girls. Esther's husband was William Herron, a re- spectable planter. She raised a large family and lived to be ninety-four or ninety-five years old. The other two girls, Margaret and ^lary, went to a wealthy Uncle liodgers of theirs, living at Kinderhook, Columbia county, Xew York, and there they were married, Mar- garet to Charles Whiting and Mary to James Clark, both respectable merchants and partners in business. Mar- garet lived to be more than seventy, her only daughter married an eminent lawyer of Albany, X. Y., named Reynolds, and has raised a large family. Mary lived to be about as old as her sister Esther, and has two daughters still living at this date (Xovember, 1896), both widows, one, Mrs. Shaw, in Xew York City, and the other, Mrs. Bain, living at Kinderhook. ]\ly Uncle Robert Adger died while yet comparatively a young man. He had two daughters. Xeither survives at this day. My father took them both into his family when they were left orphans. The older one married my cousin William Ellison. ^ly uncle, William Adger, became wealthy, raised a large family and died an old man. Some of his descend- ants bearing the name of Adger are living in Louisiana, on the Red River. Their sister Betsey married Dr. Charles Whitlaw, a celebrated physician and naturalist, whose public lectures on botany possibly some few very old people in Charles- ton may now remember. She died early, and lies buried, I believe, in the Scotch church-yard (First Presbyterian), Charleston. OUR ANCESTRY. 19 Having brought this history down so far, I must go back (asking my grandmother Eodgers' pardon), and speak more fully of her. Her maiden name was Margaret Crawford. I have been told by one who knew of her when she w^as my grandfather Adger's widow (Mr. James Black, of County Antrim) that she bore the title all through the country of "the handsome widow." Hand- some or not, I know she was godly, which is of far greater consequence. How often in my early childhood have I seen her at secret prayer in her bed-room at my father's house in Charleston. No doubt I was one of those who inherited a blessing thus. My father, I am convinced, Avas her darling son, and her Jemmy, as I often heard her call him, must have been truly a good boy. The New York to which so many North-Irish emi- grated was, even one hundred years ago, very different from what now bears that name. John Stephenson, in- ventor of the American horse-car, who is just my age, and was born, therefore, about 1810, says the "difference is amazing, and it looks like a fairy tale." He says that in his boyhood "New York City consisted of just a few small villages. The boys of one hamlet fared badly if found within the precincts of another, and on Saturday afternoons the boys of two rival hamlets would face each other on either side of a pit or cut and fight one another witJi stones." Such was the place to which my grand- mother, with her family of seven children, the oldest boy some fifteen years old, came in January, 1794. She had lost all, or nearly all, her property. A little shop she essayed to keep, "her Jemmy" being her mainstay. After awhile, as I have learned from a letter of my father's ad- dressed to his brother William in South Carolina, Robert Rogers reformed, and then it seems that he and my grand- mother had a grocery store, and Jemmy went to a trade. Whereabouts "the little shop" or "the grocery store" stood cannot be said ; very probably in that one of the hamlets lowest down the town. Doubtless they have each been succeeded by some eight or ten-story building, which con- stitutes the half of a magnificent square. In those days New York was in no respect superior to Charleston — de- cidedly, if I am not greatly mistaken, its inferior. Many 20 MY LIFE AND TIMES. circumstances combined to send Kew York to the top ; among them the tariff policy of the United States govern- ment, and the conrse of the Gulf Stream. It was probably not very long that my father remained with his mother at the little shop ; thence he went to learn the carpenter's trade. He did not like it. Many years ago I had pointed out to me a wooden building two or three stories high on Broadway on the roof of which he was at Avork when a lad, so ill at ease in that life that he was ready sometimes, as he said, to throw himself down to the ground. One day they were doing some carpen- ter's work on a ship in the harbor. Another ship was coming up from some foreign land. He was standing with other lads for a moment looking at this vessel, with his coat off and his sleeves rolled up, and one of the boys carrying a bucket full of tar behind him managed to im- merse his hands and arm up to the elbow. It turned out that a friend of the family, a Mr. James Henderson, was passenger on that vessel and he insisted on my father's quitting that business, and got him a position with some merchant. That merchant, however, soon failed in busi- ness. And so Jemmy, who had been told not to open the front door, set himself doAvn disconsolately on the sill of the door. Mr. Lang, a friend of his, came along and inquired, "Why don't you open the door?" Being an- swered, he said, "I was afraid of that." It was he who introduced Jemmy to old Mr. Bailey, who became a father to him. After him, in gratitude, he had me, who was his first-born son, named. Mr. Bailey was a dealer in hard- ware, and seems to have had a brass foundry, and I have heard my father say, pointing to a pair of old-fashioned brass fire-dogs, which had a little curved ornamentation in their front, that he remembered what a grand thing that was held to be wlien Mr. Bailey first invented that pattern. Some five or six years passed and my father had learned the business of dealing in hardware, which I have heard him say might be called a ''regular and difficult trade/' There came a ship from England with a cargo chiefly of that kind of goods, belonging to, or in charge of, an Englisliman whose name I cannot recall. I suppose OUR ANCESTRY. 21 possibly lie was what is called a supercargo, but he proved incompetent, and so it fell to Mr. Bailey to interpose, and he sent the vessel to Charleston with this Englishman in charge, but my father in charge of him. That errand de- cided his plans of life. It was in 1802. He never re- turned to live in New York. What a different family history had ours been had he not been sent to Charleston with that cargo and that super- cargo. With his energy and judgment and integrity, had he remained in New York City and begun to rise when New York began, he must, with the favor of Providence,, have been one of her richest millionaires. But what then had become of all of us ? Having sold out the cargo, he was going up to Fairfield to visit his brother William, who had long been settled there as a planter. The journey from the city was to be on horseback — perhaps the horse was one that had been bought for his brother. But this young man, so lately from New York, had never learned much about horse- back riding. So he mounted with stirrups rather too long for him, but he did not mind that, and started oif on a pretty lively gait. Old Mr. McCreight, of Winnsboro, w^ho was his travelling companion, overtook him after he had reached the outskirts of the town, and perceived that he vras riding uncomfortably, but mischievously refrained from suggesting the necessary shortening, and my father rode on a long time, and became tired enough. I am not sure if it was all day or the whole journey that he made in this fix. I fear I have never forgiven the old Winnsboro citizen for this unfriendly dealing with the stranger. It was during this visit to his brother that one day he saw Miss Sarah Elizabeth Ellison riding on horseback from her father's plantation into Winnsboro. Hers wa& a handsome face and figure, and she wore a stylish beaver riding hat, and the young gallant New York Irishman was done for. It was a case of love at first sight with my father, and I am sure from what my mother has told me that she also was interested at first sight. But when he called to make his formal proposal he met with an unexpected obstacle. 22 MY lAh'K AND TIMKS. The yomia,' ladyV father had married a second wife, who proved not a good step-mother. Miss Sarah was in the house, but happened to be upstairs inspecting and repair- ing some damage done by a tame squirrel which had got into her drawer, and Step-mother would not let the young man's name be announced to her. Thus, placing herself between the two parties, she kept the young man mean- while in ignorance of the real state of the case. After waiting a reasonable time to see his lady love, but in vain, he got vexed and started off, being heard to say, ''If I cannot marry where affection calls, I shall go to Xew York and marry where duty requires." So he took him- self off in a hurry right down to Charleston. The young lady became aware of her danger, WTote to her brother John, then a merchant in Charleston, and explained to him the part her step-mother had acted, and bid him go to see the young man and explain matters. He soon found him, and it is said the two young men took a walk together around the Tobacco Inspection Building, then famous in Charleston, and it was not long before he was up in Winnsboro again, and the matter was peacefully and pleasantly settled. The tobacco crop was then a very important matter in Charleston commerce. From many miles around the city they used to roll in the big hogsheads, each drawm by one horse. It became necessary that there should be a public inspection of tobacco. An immense shed was erected along Hudson street, running from King to Meeting, and co^;ering all the ground now occupied by the Citadel. This was sometimes tilled with hogsheads of tobacco wait- ing for inspection and sail. It was around this capacious mart that our two young men took their interesting walk whilst the brother skillfully smoothed away the offence his sister had unwittingly given. My Mother's Ancestry. Let me now turn and attempt to give an account of my mother's ancestry on her father's side. I have before me two documents containing testimony from two grandsons of my great-grandfather, William Ellison, to-wit : John, the son of Robert Ellison, and William, the son of John OUK AXCESTKY. 23 Ellison. These two grandsons were men of abont the same age, and they had equal opportunities to know^ of what they spoke. The former, John Ellison, was a man of excellent sense and strict integrity ; the other also was a man of high intelligence, a lawver by profession and entirely worthy of confidence. They differ on some points which only establishes their truthfulness. The former gives his testimony through a niece. She is an educated lady, who immediately recorded all his state- ments, except two, and afterwards got him to repeat them. But my cousin William's statements are made from mem- ory by one of his daughters, Elizabeth Martha, in one of the aforesaid documents. She also was a lady of high in- telligence. Her father had a family Bible in which his father had written a ''history of the family in many jiages." This was consumed when his dwelling was burnt. She claims to remember very distinctly the facts of this narrative, but not the dates ; but she says her father had given great attention to the family history, learning it both from the record in the Bible and from conversations with his father. Before T proceed to examine these two lines of testi- mony, I submit two preliminary statements furnished me by two cousins, devoted to antiquarian researches. The first one of these is interesting, though it does not claim any great importance. It runs thus : 'Tn Collins Peerage of England, edition of 1768, Vol. VII., p. 357, there is the record of the marriage of Robert Ellison, Esq., of Hepburn, County Durham, England, to a titled lady, betW'Cen 1600-1700, the precise date not given. This is valuable as showing that there were Ellisons in Durham. And also the name Robert is significant." The second statement is based on a reference to "Los- sing's Field Book of the Revolution," wdiere mention is made of two Ellisons, Jolm and William, who do not seem, however, to belong to our immediate family. Their home was New Windsor, ]^ew Jersey. My informant received a letter from one of their descendants in Xew Jersey, which says, "The names Andrew^, William, Robert and John were peculiar to the Ellison family of Durham, and in the old cemetery there you would 24 MY LIFE AyiB TIMES. find those names on the old tombstones." lie had lately visited the place. His grandfather was an Andrew Elli- son. Here we have a statement that is direct and very important. I now introduce an item of Uncle John Ellison's testi- mony confirmatory of the statement above given. He tells his niece, "Our forefathers went from England to Ireland during one of the persecutions." Thus John be- gins his account, not with his grandfather, William Elli- son, in 17-14, but with our forefathers. Yet when he speaks of his grandfather's settlement in Ireland, he places it in County xVntrim, Cousin William Ellison, who was popularly known as Lawyer Billy Ellison, practised law in Camden, and also in Chester, before he settled at what became his life's home, on Dutchman's Creek, Fairfield county. He be- gins his testimony, as it is written by his daughter, thus : ^'I have many times heard from my father that the Elli- sons were landed proprietors with considerable property living on the borders between two coimties in Ireland, but the names of their residences I have forgotten, though it was mentioned in that Bible. They were called Lairds.'^ I take it these two counties w^ere Derry and Antrim. Uncle John's statement about our forefathers may be very easily understood as running back a half century or more. This would bring us to the time of the siege of Londonderry in 1689. Macaulay tells us (Vol. III., page 115) how, M'lien the Irish army were first seen approach- ing, and thirteen Scotch apprentices had seized the keys and closed the gates of the terrified city, "messengers were sent, under cover of the following night, to the Protestant gentlemen of the neighboring counties. . . . The Protestants of the iieighborhood promptly obeyed the summons of Londonderry. Within forty-eight hours hun- dreds of horse and foot came by various roads to the city.'^ Thus the number of men within the walls was increased to seven thousand. I would be glad to know positively \vhat I am quite prepared to believe, that our Ellison ''forefathers'' were among the first to give this response. But of another thing I do feel very sure, namely, that after Major Pobert Ellison had given his daughter Sarah OUE ANCESTEY. 25 Elizabeth to the young man who had asked for her, he would often make him sit down while he told him not only all about what he himself had done and suffered in the Revolutionary war, but also all that he had heard his father tell about what had been done by our "forefathers" and others at the siege of Londonderry and the battle of the Boyne. He w^ould thus be all the better prepared to say to his grown-up daughter, when he had one, that it was honor enough for her that her ''forefathers" had fought at Derry. Lawj'er William's daughter says, "I think that our great-grandparents were dead when the Irish rebellion commenced." Probably they were. The Irish rebellion was in 1798. They removed from Ireland to America fifty-four years before the Irish rebellion and very prob- ably were dead w^hen that event occurred. But she goes on to say, ''There was an elder brother who was the head of the" family and took j)art in that rebellion. He was executed when Lord Fitzgerald died, and the family property was confiscated by the English government." Here again, of course, is another mistake. Lord Edward Eitzgerald did head the Irish rebellion in 1798, but the elder brother must have lived long before 1798 or 1744 either. Here comes in an item of Uncle John's testimony, who told his niece that "some of our forefathers engaged in the wars against William the Conqueror." Of course, here is a lapsus linguae of the old man or a lapsus pennae of the young lady. He meant to say William of Orange. But the mistake is of slight importance, while the fact which is stated is very important. Some of our fore- fathers fought for William the Third in his Irish battles, but some of these forefathers of ours were loyal to King James and fought for him. It is generally so ; war divides families, puts brothers on one side and brothers on the other — equally honorable it frequently is to be on either side. It is even quite possible that some of our forefathers who did not actually fight for King James sympathized strongly with the men of that side ; har- bored them, concealed them when pursued, and so became involved actually, though not formally, in rebellion against King William, so that their landed estates and 2G MY LIFE AND TIMES. other property were all confiscated by King William's government. But here comes a positive statement attrib- nted to "Lawyer William." "My father told me that his nncle, who was executed, was a man of culture and educa- tion." Well, her father did not say he was executed for taking ])art in the Irish rebellion. He was too intelligent and well-read to have made such a misstatement about that rebellion. Moreover, it was not possible that any uncle of his could have been in that rebellion. His uncles and his grandfather were all off to America fifty-four years before the rebellion. His daughter did not correctly understand what he said. He must have used the word uncle in a very wide sense ; he might have meant to say that some grand uncle of his amongst "those forefathers" of whom TTncle John speaks, a man of culture and education, was executed for being somehow drawn in amongst the op- posers of William of Orange. ISTow we are prepared to hear what these two grandsons tell about the emigration from Ireland to Pennsylvania and to South Carolina. First, we have from the written document of Lawyer Billy Ellison's daughter, the following statement: "My grandfather was only fifteen years of age when they emi- grated to America and settled in Pennsylvania. He, with his brother Bobert, came to South Carolina, and bought lands in Fairfield District, ' and lived there until they died. My grandfather married his first wife, Mary Byers, the sister of ^Mrs. Rachel Milligan, of Charleston ; she died a few days after the birth of an infant daughter, Mary Byers Ellison. Mrs. Robert Ellison took the infant and nursed it with her son John Ellison, nearly the same age. Previous to moving to the up-country, my grand- father John married again in Charleston, his second wife Elizabeth McCormick, my father's mother. My father was known as Lawyer Billy Ellison. My grandfather survived his second wife some years, and married a third wife, who was a widow, Mrs. Harrison, the mother of Cousin Mary Ellison, whom you know as the wife of your LTncle William Ellison, who lived at the old [Robert] Ellison homestead in Fairfield District. IS'either my father nor his sister [half-sister, Mary Byers Ellison, OUR AlVCESTEY, 27 wife of Austin Peay] spoke of any sisters of their father, that is, any sisters of John or Robert Ellison." Secondly, we have an account of the emigration and subsequent historv given l)y my uncle John Ellison as carefully written down by his niece. "Your great-grand- father William Ellison, with his family of four sons and one daughter, moved from County iVntrim, Ireland, to Pennsylvania in l7-i4. Having moderate means, he left but little to his children. He and his wife are buried in Pennsylvania. ''William, Andrew, John and Robert and one daughter moved to Fairfield, S. C, after the death of their parents. William and Andrew lived bachelors, and the daughter married Mr. McAllister, of South Carolina. "Robert Ellison, your grandfather, was born in County Antrim, Ireland, 1742, and was about nineteen years of age when he moved from Pennsylvania to Fairfield, S. C. Having a good English education, he soon secured the position of surveyor, obtained lands and other property. He married Elizabeth Potts, of Charleston, j^ovember 6, 1772, settled on his farm, two miles from Winnsboro, volunteered in the Revolutionary war. A man of indom- itable will and energy, he organized forthwith a company, of which he was captain, under General Moultrie, fought boldly, was promoted to major. At Stono his horse was killed under him. In the retreat from Augusta to Charleston under Moultrie (British under Lord Rawdon) he was daily engaged in skirmishes. The American army reached Charleston first, but he, while skirmishing, was taken prisoner, carried to Charleston, then to John's Is- land, then to the Dry Tortugas, and cruelly treated for two years. His wife, alone and unprotected with five children, was molested by the depredations of the Tories, depriving her of everything, tore her hair by the roots, which mark she bore through life. She, upon little pack horses, with her little ones and Xewry, an old servant, left for Charleston, hoping to find protection in her relatives. The old servant, Xewry, persuaded his wife, children and other servants, Londonderry and Belfast, to follow him and serve the family at the camps. He travelled, keeping vratch, all concealiuii: themselves in the woods at the 28 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. glimpse of any one in the rear or front of them. Newry travelled ahead, procuring provisions, and met them at camp at night. xVfter reaching Charleston your grand- mother hired out these servants for her support. "She had left her house in charge of a hired man, Avho was attacked by the Tories. He jumped from a window where sat a Tory on watch ; in his escape he was cut on the head, and he affected to be dying, when some ex- claimed, 'Kill him, kill him !' Others cried, 'It is a shame to shoot a dying man !' and thus he made his escape, after- wards was seen and recognized by the family, but the house was burned. After the declaration of peace, she returned to her own home, her neighbors building her a house and caring for her, until your grandfather was re- leased from prison. "Your grandmother died on January 15, 1793. Your grandfather married again, Jennie Seawright. The chil- dren left home early in years. Your grandfather died March 8, 1806, and is buried alongside of his wife, and with his three brothers in the family burial ground on the old homestead, two miles from Winnsboro. My two brothers, "William and James Ellison, early went with me to Charleston, where when quite a youth I entered the house of Lesesne & Co., as clerk, and subsequently became a dry-goods merchant, in King street, near Broad." During this last-named period my uncle John was married to Miss Susannah Milligan, of Charleston. Eespecting Kobert Ellison's being taken prisoner by the British, a family tradition is that he was confined in one of the vaults under the old post-office building, in com- pany with Colonel Hayne, who was afterwards hanged ; also, that he was offered release if he would take the oath of allegiance, which he refused ; also, that part of his con- finement was on board a British prison-ship in the harbor of Charleston. Another of our family traditions is that when our grandmother reached Charleston with her five children, she interviewed the British commander and pleaded that, as he had her husband in confinement and her property all destroyed by the Tories, he ought to issue rations for her and her children. Her plea prevailed. In 1777 the famous Mt. Zion Society was organized in OUR AIS^CESTEY. 29 Cliarleston. Its first president was Colonel John Winn, and its wardens General William Strotliers and Captain Eobert Ellison. It began with a membership of fifty- eight. Among its members in the second year we find the names of Andrew Pickens, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Wade Hampton. In 1779 two hnndred and sixty- four names were found on its roll. The object of this society was to promote the education of the young men of the State, and its success was great. The centre of it came to be transferred to Winnsboro, and Captain Eobert Elli- son was one of its chief promoters. It is of record that in 1784 he rode to Rowan, X. C, to persuade the Rev. Thomas H. McCaule, who was a distinguished Presbyte- rian minister and graduate of Princeton College, to be- •come the president of Mt. Zion Academy. Under his ad- ministration it became a college, and finally, in some sense, there grew out of it the South Carolina College at (yolumbia. Hitherto we have considered family records and family traditions. Let us now look into Bishop Gregg's ad- mirable History of the Old Chemws, where we shall find frequent reference to Robert Ellison, as playing a very important part in that portion of the State. By referring to the map, which Bislio]) Gregg gives of the old Cheraws, we shall see that the old Cheraws District covered the counties now kno^vn as Marlborough, Chesterfield, Dar- lington, Williamsburg, Clarendon, Sumter and Kershaw, and touched what is now kno^^^l as Chester and Fairfield counties. This Cheraws District was divided, after the Revolution, into three portions known as Chesterfield, Marlborough and Darlington ; but I cannot think that these were the same as the counties now bearing those names. The first mention which Bishop Gregg makes of Robert Ellison is in reference to a petition which the said Robert Ellison presented to the Legislature of South Car- olina, meeting in January, 1783. "On the 24th of Feb- ruary the petition of Robert Ellison was read, setting forth that he was an officer in the militia before the fall of Charlestown, and always exerted himself in the service of America — that he was made a prisoner in Camden, and confined on James Island under very unhappy cir- 30 MY LIFE AND TIMES. ciimstanecs, and therefore prayed relief from the penalties of an aet for amercing certain persons therein men- tioned, etc. The case of ]\Ir. Ellison seems to have been misunderstood. He was consequently relieved, and con- tinued to enjoy the confidence and esteem of his fellow- citizens to the close of his useful life." (Page 416.) Another mention by Bishop Gregg of Robert Ellison is the statement that at the JSTovember election in 1788 for the Parish of St. David's, Morgan Brown was returned as Senator, and Robert Ellison, with sundry other per- sons, as Representatives. (Page 448.) Another mention of Robert Ellison is when he was elected, with others, a delegate from St. David's Parish to a convention, meeting in Columbia, on the second Mon- day in May, 1790, to consider the question of a new State constitution. This convention met in due time. The new constitution was adopted on the 3d of June. It gave the counties of ^Marlborough, Chesterfield and Darlington two representatives each, and for the three, two senators. At the ensuing election, Morgan Brown and Robert Ellison were returned Senators. (Pages 450-451.) Again in January, 1791, he is elected by the Leo'isla- ture a county court judge for Darlington. (Page 452.) In October, 1792 he is re-elected Senator. (Page 454.) This year the Legislature meets on the 4th of Novem- ber, and on the 3d of December he presents a petition praying for relief to sundry persons unable to meet their payment of the "paper medium loan," by reason of ex- traordinary droughts and freshets, which ruined their crops. This petition is referred to a committee consisting of himself and Generals Barnwell and Pinckney. The report was favorable, and a bill passed in accordance therewith. At the session of the followinr combining and confederating in such a scheme were amply afforded by the extreme indulgence and kindness, which characterizes the domestic treatment of our slaves. Many slave-owners among us, not satisfied with minister- ing to the wants of their domestics by all the comforts of abundant food and excellent clothing, with a misguided benevolence have not only permitted their instruction, but lent to such efforts their approbation and applause. Re- ligious fanaticism has not been without its effect on this project, and, as auxiliary to these sentiments, the seces- sion of a large body of blacks from the white Methodist church, with feelings of irritation and disappointment, formed a hot-bed, in which the germ might w^ell be ex- pected to spring into life and vigor. Among the con- spirators a majority of them belonged to the 'African Church' and among those executed were several who had been class-leaders. It is, however, due to the late head of their church (for since the late events the association has been voluntarily dissolved) and their deacons to say that, after the most diligent search and scouting, no evidence entitled to belief has been discovered against them. .A. 54 MY LIFE AND TIMES. hearsay rumor in relation to Morris Brown was traced far enough to end in its complete falsification." Upon these statements by the very intelligent author of this pamphlet I have some observations to make. I. In the first place, he is quite right speaking of the kindness with which our slaves in Charleston, and I may say, throughout South Carolina, were generally treated. I feel perfectly sure that the duties of the relation of master and slave amongst us were just as well performed as those of human relations in general. To say no more, it was for the interest of the master to treat his slaves well. I have personally known a lady, not at all more humane or kind-hearted than women generally, to sit up alone night after night, nursing a valuable slave, sick with typhoid fever. It Avas to her interest to see that the proper medicine was given at the proper time, and that nothing should be wanting to preserve the life of her val- uable servant. Let outsiders say what they will, masters and slaves, throughout the whole South generally, occu- pied very kindly relations to one another. It is enough to . point to the good behavior of the Southern slaves in gen- eral during the late war, when the masters were nearly all at the front, they stood as the guardians and protectors of mistress and her children. II. But, in the second place, it was no "misguided be- nevolence" which led many slave-owners, not only to fur- nish their domestics with abundant food and comfortalde clothing, but also to permit their instruction in reading and writing by their own children and others, but even to give such efforts their well-merited applause. These in- telligent slaveholders held rightly that light is better than darkness — that the ignorance of the slave was more dan- gerous, as well as more unprofitable, than his intelligence. Who does not see that, if the bulk of his followers had been sufficiently educated to see how vain his attempt was, they never could have been persuaded to join in it ? III. In the third place, it appears to me the writer Vi raistaken as to there being much, if any, religious fanati- cism at the bottom of this attempted insurrection. Vesey, it seems, grossly perverted Scripture in removing the scruples of his religious followers ; but so also maiiv of MY CHILDHOOD AND EARLY YOUTH. 55 the !N"ortliern abolitionsts, who would justly be very in- dignant at being called religions fanatics, grossly pervert the Scriptures to make them condemn slaveholding. Keither Denmark Vesey nor any of his most earnest fol- lowers seem to me to have been religious fanatics. They wanted their freedom, which is the natural desire of all men. He had his freedom. But he wanted also blood and booty, and that he might get oif with a load of specie and other valuables to San Domingo. I do not believe that that African church was the centre of the movement for insurrection. The writer distinctly acknowledges that Morris Browm and his deacons were proved to be in- nocent of any complicity in it. But the people of Charles- ton very naturally Avere under very great excitement, and it was almost inevitable that their suspicions should at- tach to that poor African church. As will appear in a subsequent chapter, I was to learn, at a future time, how sensitive jDublic sentiment in our good old city had been rendered by this attempt at insurrection respecting any separate organization of the negroes for religious instruc- tioji, even when it was to be given by white teachers alone. After a quarter of a century that poor, little African church, under good Morris Brown and his worthy coadju- tors, was to loom up, and be held forth as having been a most dangerous institution, in order to create prejudice against an honest attempt to give safe, sound and Scrip- tural instruction to our slaves by white teachers of native growth and every way competent qualifications. CHAPTER III. Academy and College Life. 1824-1828. ON THE 11 til day of July, 1824, when I was thir- teen years seven months old, I was sent from Charleston with my younger brother, James, to Kinder- hook, to my father's two half-sisters, in order that we might attend the academy at that place. That academy had some considerable reputation. The idea then pre- vailed with many in our Southern country, and especially in Charleston, that schools at the North were far superior to ours. In addition to this idea my parents supposed that the change of climate would develop my constitution, for I was at that time rather small for my age. The view perhaps proved to be correct, but the Kinderhook Acad- emy was in no ways superior, if indeed it was equal, to the Charleston school from which I had been taken. The principal in his prime must have been a competent teacher, but in 1824 he was a worn-out old man, exceed- ingly near-sighted and very absent-minded, besides being an inveterate and voracious and very disgusting chewer of tobacco. While hearing a class in Latin or Greek, he would hold the text-book close up to his eyes and then stroll diagonally across the school-room to the door and then back again to his position, opening the door every time he got to it, that he might squirt the tobacco juice out of his mouth, while some of it would run down upon his beard and upon his shirt bosom. Such was the teacher ; as to the scholars, while a number of them were much older and a great deal bigger than the Southern boys, not one of them was more advanced than the older of the two in Latin or Greek. The most notable circumstance of my life at Kinder- hook Academy was that I tliere met a little Dutch boy, six years of age, who subsequently became one of tlie most distiuc'uished men of our time. He was in the second or ACADEMY AXD COLT.EGE LIFE. 57 English department of the Academy, and being my junior by about seven years, my personal acquaintance with him was slight. He was small for his age, but very handsome, and bore himself with such sturdy, but not saucy, inde- pendence as made me feel even then that he was a char- acter. About the year 1840, at the age of twenty-two, he went as a missionary to Beirut in Syria, and died there at the age of seventy-seven. From the moment of his first arrival he made it his sole business to acquire the Arabic language, and to this end quit the society of all English-speaking people at Beirut, and sought for and found a home for some years amongst the Arabs themselves. This showed the regular Dutch material of which he was made. The result was that one who knew him well says he became such a master of Arabic as had no peer, and that his death leaves such a vacancy amongst Arabic scholars as will probably never be filled. He was long recognized by European savanta as the greatest living Arabic scholar. When he went to Berlin, the great German professors, who had given years to the study of the Oriental languages, soon perceived that they were in the presence of a master before whom they felt they were mere tyros. How could it be otherwise ? This man for more than fifty years, was not only devoted to the reading of Arabic in books, but to the speaking of it and the hearing of it spoken. His vocation in part was to preach in Arabic, and that duty he performed with the greatest success. He spoke the language like an Arab; and on one occasion, in the year 1860, when war raged in the M.t. Lebanon country, between the Druses and the Maronites, he came near losing his life because those into whose hands he had fallen could not believe him to be an American, but insisted that he belonged to the enemy be- caiise he talked Arabic just like a native. But this man was not simply a master of Arabic, but a missionary physician, and so rendered very great service. He was also a chemist, mathematician, astronomer, and a profound Biblical scholar. He wi-ote several medical books in iVrabic, among them one on diseases of the eye, so prevalent in the East. But the greatest work of his pen was his translation of the Bible into Arabic, which 58 MY I.IFE AISTD TIMES. was begun by the lamented Eli Smith, and to which this man gave twelve years of continuous labor, esteemed to be one of the best translations in any language. It places the Word of God within the reach of one hundred millions of Mohammedans. Thus my youthful acquaintance of six years of age, whom all the Dutch boys at Kinderhook called ''Little Kale," has, through divine grace, been enabled to act well his part in the history of the Christian Church of this nineteenth century, and has become known in Europe, America, and also Asia, as the Rev. Cornelius Van Alen Van Dyck, with a long string of titles at the end of his name. Certainly he was one to whom the w^ords apply, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from hence- forth ; yea, saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labors and their works do follow them." I passed one year at the Kinderhook Academy. My father came on to see his sisters and his sons in our second summer there. The assistant teacher of the Academy, who was a cultivated gentleman, when consulted with by my father, thought it was advisable that I should be trans- ferred to L^nion College, Schenectady, applying for ad- mission to the sophomore class. This was certainly enough to demonstrate that seventy-one years ago Union College was by no means what it may rightfully claim to be in 1896. Else how otherwise could a little boy of fif- teen and a half years of age have been received with so little preparation as mine was into its sophomore class ? Still it had for its president even then the eminent and eloquent Rev. Dr. Eliphalet ISTott ; and two of its profes- sors then wore Alonzo Potter, subsequently Bishop of Pennsylvania, and Eraneis Wayland, afterwards pres- ident of Brown University, Rhode Tslaiid, both very superior men. My brother James was very unwilling to remain aloue at Kinderhook Academy, and stubbornly averse to the idea of going any further in the study of the classics. His- father found it impossible to refuse his persistent request to be taken home and set to work in his counting house, so he was taken back to Charleston, and duly in- stalled on a high stool at a desk with a big ledger spread ACADEMY AND COLLEGE LIFE. 59 out before him full of old accounts, settled one or two scores of years previously. He was to go over these ac-. counts and see if he could find any mistakes. He went energetically to work, and persevered with it laboriously, having the idea in his mind that a very important task had been committed to him. By way of variety he had a marking pot and brush with which to mark hundreds of bales of cotton. His industrious and exact and careful attention to these official duties gave our father very great satisfaction, foreseeing clearly what a man of business that boy would become. But it was not very long before a desire for the college education he had once despised came back upon him with tremendous force, and the strong-willed father again gave way to the persistent re- quest of his strong-willed son. He entered Charleston College, became an enthusiastic student of the ancient languages and achieved honorable distinction at his grad- uation. For his older brother to be got ready for Union College some preparation by the tailor was now become necessary. Hitherto the boy had worn a round jacket, but amongst other things a tail coat was now to be prepared for him. And such a tail coat as the Dutch tailor of Kinderhook did then construct ! It was short in the waist. It was short at the tail. What a figure he did cut when he put on that coat ! the recollection always makes me laugh now in my eighty-sixth year. But it was the first tail coat the boy had ever worn, and in his simplicity he felt that it constituted one long step towards manhood. So he went to Union College thus apparelled, and whenever he after- wards appeared along with other collegians in the streets of Schenectady (or old Durrip, as it was by them jocu- larly called), the small boys of the town, attracted partly by the shortness of his stature, and no doubt very largely by the shortness of the tail coat, would follow after, cry- ing out, "Look at the little student." I can't remember when, but suppose it could not have been very long before the "little student" became the master of a more respect- able tail coat. I stood successfully all the examination that was re- quired for admission into the sophomore class. But Dr. 60 MY LIFE AND TI^SIES. 'Nott, President of the College, influenced perhaps some- what by the diminutiveness of my apj)earance, discour- aged my father from leaving me there. He was certainly to be honored for giving this candid advice, for there was no great plentifulness of students there at this time. What affected the President's judgment much more was that I was a Southern boy. He strongly portrayed the very peculiar danger there was that as such I would be ruined. Dr. ]^ott was a wise and good man ; he had had considerable experience with Southern students. Such a number of them from other colleges, some ^'suspended" or "rusticated," and some even "expelled" for dissipation or other bad conduct, had come to Union College, and the President had graciously received them into his classes, that Union College had earned the sobriquet of "Botany Bay." But great was Dr. ISTott's knowledge of human na- ture, especially in the young, and great was his delight in taking a young man who had been so disgraced, and, by judicious treatment, restoring him to self-respect and good behavior. Thus had he saved many a Southern youth. One such at Union College in my time was the celebrated statesman, Robert Toombs, of Georgia. But Dr. ISTott was persuaded that one so young and inexperi- enced as I, would certainly be in very special danger. My father, however, seemed to have very great confidence in his little son, and so it was decided that I should remain. He said very little to me, but I remember that his last words were, "Now, don't learn to smoke or chew or any other bad habit." But it was not very long before my father received a letter from Dr. Nott, which must have made him appre- hensive that his leaving me at college was a mistake. The letter informed him that his son had been found guilty of having liquor in his room, and a carousing party there at unseasonable hours of the night. The truth of the business was that during the examination held at the close of my first session in college, when I had got nearly through, and in a day or two vacation was to begin, a young man who was in the same class with my room-mate, came up to chat a little with his friend. This young man was named Reid, and was from Poughkcepsie, on the ACADEMY AND COLLEGE LIFE. 61 Hudson river. Mrs. Dr. 'Nott was from that same place, and this young man was, therefore, well kno\vn to the President. It was also understood that he was to become an Episcopal minister. My room-mate was a member of the Dutch Keformed Church, a decided Christian, and he also was destined to the ministry. After chatting with us for awhile, Reid, who was quite youthful, and of a social and lively disposition, said, ''I have some fresh eggs in my room ; suppose I bring them up here, and we scramble them in a tin plate, and we enjoy ourselves. This was the beginning of the affair. One and another of our fellow-students dropped in before the scrambling, and then it was thought advisable that we should have some- thing to eat with the eggs, and so I, with one other of the party, went over to the steward's hall, and bought a large apple-pie — I, being the Southern boy, probably furnishing the money. By the time we got back two or three more students had dropped in, and somehow or other, but I don't know how, a supply of whiskey had also been ob- tained. One of the last arrivals was Beall, a young Mary- lander, who was full of life and fun, and who made con- siderable noise at the entertainment. How many of the seven or eight present partook of the whiskey I cannot say ; but I feel sure my Dutch room-mate was not one of them, and I know that I didn't taste it. I have always been constitutionally averse to spirits of any kind. But to tell the truth, young Reid took enough of it to become a little hilarious, and then insisted on making a very bois- terous speech. Of course. Dr. Potter, the professor who had charge of our section of the college building, and who occupied a part of it with his family, must have heard the uproar, and no doubt he must have come and looked in upon our merriment. And so, no doubt, next morning we were all reported to the President. That day as I passed the President's study he was just coming out of it, and so he took me by the arm and we walked together to the next college building. He was ex- ceedingly kind and fatherly in talking with me, but dwelt on liquor being introduced into college as a very serious wrong. I don't remember if I told him that I had not in- troduced it nor even tasted it. I know that I accused no- 62 MY LIFE AND TIMES. body else ; all I remember was saying to him, "But, Doc- tor, it was only a little." "Ah! but, my son," he said, with his hand on my shoulder, "it is the principle that I look at." Here was a distinction made of the utmost im- portance, which I daresay never before occurred to me. I have always looked back upon that conversation with gratitude to the old President. That was all he said to me, but he added another kindness to me in communicat- ing his views of the matter, as he understood it, to my father. The paternal rebuke which I got was also very kind, expressing great surprise and keen disappointment that I should have "held a wine party in my room." Of course my reply must have given my father great satisfac- tion, as I sent him a full, frank and correct statement of the case. But the sequel, I must say, did not seem to me alto- gether honorable in the President. At the beginniiiii; of every new session, when we returned to college, after vacation, we always found hung up in a conspicuous place what was called the Merit Roll. It contained the names of the several classes separately written alphabetically, so that my name appeared almost at the head of the soph- omore class. Then there were five distinct columns, marked at the head of the first. Conduct ; the second. At- tendance, and the other three, the names of the three studies of the previous session. In each of these columns every student found opposite to his own name, publicly held forth, what had been his relative standing the pre- vious session. The highest grade, which we call Maxi- mum, was one himdred, any figure below ninety was rather disgraceful. I had reason to expect that I would not get quite one hundred in point of conduct, and so I was not surprised at all to be put down at ninety-nine. But I did consider it rather hard that my room-mate, who was a mature man, while I was a little boy, was made to stand at one hundred in conduct, and that young Reid was made to occupy the same honorable position. It was taken for granted that the Southern boy must be one of the guilty, but the two young preachers were to be let off. I never met either of these two again. The Southern boy was never involved in any other ACADEMY AND COLLEGE LIFE. 63 scandal during the whole of his course. For this there was one cause that was quite adequate for such an effect. A great moral change came over me during the next sum- mer. I have reason to believe that I came under the power of regenerating grace. This was in my sixteenth year, and four or five others of my class appeared to be affected in the same way. A brief account of this event will be interesting and perhaps profitable. I was just a light-hearted boy, by no means very studious, maintaining a tolerable stand at recitation, quite happy in my relation to all my college friends, and very well satisfied on the whole with myself. One day I got to the dining hall quite late, and there were very few students still at their dinner, but I very soon discovered that they were all a good deal agitated about something. Uj)on inquiring of one what was the matter, the answer was, "Why, that fel- low McDowell is going about talking to everybody on the subject of religion." How well do I remember the terror which immediately filled my soul, and how unwilling I was to have this discovered by others. So I assumed the air of one who has nothing to be afraid of, and boldly de- clared, "If he dares to speak to me, I will tell him I think on that subject for myself." I vainly imagined that this should be a perfect shield against McDowell's approach. But then McDowell never approached me, and I had to go to McDowell. I fully believe the Holy Spirit was begin- ning his work in me with that first shock of mortal terror. Who was McDowell ? A student some twenty-five years old, in the sophomore class with me, and who always sat right beside me in the class-room, and of whom I had had no dread until I heard the aj^palling news that he was talking of personal religion to some of our class-mates. Well do I remember how, some two or three months be- fore this, as I sat one Sunday in the gallery of the Pres- byterian church at Schenectady, I heard the minister, the Rev. Dr. Erskine Mason, say some words about the neces- sity of every one being converted and becoming a Chris- tion. But I quickly put aside what he uttered with the thought in my heart that I was too young to be concerned about that matter. But that day at dinner in the hall there came upon me an influence shaking out of me in one 64 MY LIFE AND TIMES. moment every particle of indifference, and dispelling for- ever all my fancied security. John R. McDowell was a poor young man from Can- ada, dressed in a suit of clothes hardly decent, who, we understood, got his boarding and tuition for the service of ringing the college bell wath careful punctuality at every recitation, and for prayers in the early morning. The room that Avas given him was a miserable apartment, a kind of long corridor in the second story of a wing in the college building. He was put there to be close to the bell. Much older than the most of his class-mates he was by no means in advance of them in our studies. And then he halted in his walk, being somewhat lame in one leg. Look now at this picture. There was nothing in the cir- cumstances or appearance of John K. McDowell to awaken our respect, in fact there was much calculated to make us thoughtless boys look down upon him. But he was a holy man of God, a thoroughly earnest Christian, and therefore his personal deformity, his poverty, his old clothes, his want of any superior claims to talent or edu- cation, set him before us all in the same light in which Paul, the poor tent-maker, and all the other humble apos- tles of our Lord, stood before the rich and the great in Jerusalem, Asia Minor, Greece and Rome. This man McDowell, as I said, never addressed me a word on the subject of religion, but there was a higher power operating within my soul. The conviction that I was a sinner took strong hold of me. I scarcely thought of anything else, and yet I managed to get my lessons and recite them about as well as ever. But I spent my leisure hours in reading the Bible, or conferring with a few of my classmates and others affected in the same manner as myself ; or else betaking myself to the fields behind the college, I strolled about in solitary prayer. One day, when alone with my new room-mate, Peter Henry Sylvester, of Kinderhook, a class-mate of his called. This young man, a number of years my senior, was very fond of me, in fact made me a pet, and fre- quently took me on his knee. He was a fine, manly fel- low, tall and handsome, from Central, ISTew York State. I admired him greatly. His name was Rufus \V. Peck- ACADEMY AND COLLEGE LIFE. 65 ham. He became an eminent lawyer, prominent member of Congress, but he was drowned many years afterwards, when the steamship Arctic went down in the Atlantic, with so many of her passengers. He has a son and name- sake now sitting in the Supreme Court of the United States. This friend of mine occupied a room immedi- ately opposite to mine. He began talking, as soon as he was seated, with Sylvester, about the man McDowell. He said his room-mate did nothing but read the Bible and pray since McDowell had been talking to him. Then he turns to me, continuing his talk, and says, "Why, Adger, I hear that you are one of them." I do not remember what answer I made him, but rose almost immediately and went across to his room, where I found my class-mate, David H. Little, brushing his own shoes. I said to him, "Little, where are you going ?" He answered, "I am going over to McDowell's room to attend a prayer-meet- ing." I had never heard of this prayer-meeting before, but immediately said, "I will go with you." So we started together. Just in front of the college, as we issued forth, there was a muster and drill of a company of cadets of the college, which Dr. I^^ott encouraged us all to join. Little and I were both members, but our places in the muster that afternoon were vacant. I felt sure that our companions in the drill observed us, and knew whither we were going. But the power that was working within made me bold and ind liferent to wdiatever they might think. That was my first visit to McDowell's prayer- meeting in his poor, miserable quarters. I went regularly after that. My distress of mind continued for about a fortnight. Prominent in their attendance at this meeting were a number of students, nearly or quite all of them full-grown men, apparently between twenty-three and twenty-eight years of age, all backward in their education and noted for their low stand in their classes, poorly clad, and, like ^McDowell himself, not held in much personal respect by the students generally. But they were good men and consistent followers of Christ, and all took their part alternately in the conduct of the prayer-meeting. One afternoon in great distress, sitting away oif in one corner of McDowell's long apartment, listening to all that QQ MY LIFE AND TIMES. was said, I heard some one speaking of tliat passage of Scripture, "We know that we have passed from death Tinto life, because we love the brethren," when, lo ! imme- diately the hope sprang up in my heart, as I looked at the crowd of these poor disciples, that I also ''must have passed from death unto life," because assuredly I do love these despised brethren. This made me feel very happy. I believed that I was justified by faith, and therefore I had peace with God through Jesus Christ my Lord. My peace, however, was not very long-continued. A great darkness came over my soul. I gave up all hope that my sins had been forgiven, and again I began to feel, as I had done before, that I was on the brink of everlasting ruin. Again and again I dare not lay my head at night upon my pillow, lest if I should fall asleep I might wake up in the abyss. In my great distress I had recourse to jMc- Dowell. It was evening. I went to his room, he prayed with me and talked with me, but I was not relieved ; he left me after awhile to go down into the tovm, where he was holding a prayer-meeting. I sat by his lamp and read the Bible and tried to pray. When he returned I was in the same condition ; again he essayed for a long time to help me, but in vain. At last, being worn out himself and obliged to ring the bell punctually early in the morning, he retired to his bed, but I continued to sit by his lamp, seeking to find again the hope that I had lost. A long time I remained in that same despairing state of mind. I was reluctant to return to my own room, as it was very late at night. At last I was exhausted by excitement and fatigue. My poor friend's bed did not look very inviting, it was quite alive with previous occupants — I saw them plainly — but I was not in a condition to be deterred by such circumstances, and so I threw myself down by his side and slept till his bell aroused me, when I repaired to my own quarters. These alternations of darkness and light, of doubts and hopes continued, as is usilal with young believers, for some time. After a fev^ months I was received upon pro- fession of faith as a member of the Presbyterian church in Schenectady. My room-mate, Sylvester, and my spe- cial friend Peckham ended their course, and I then be- ACADEMY AND COLLEGE LIFE, 67 came a room-mate with David H. Little, and we remained together imtil we were both graduated in 1828. I look back upon my college course with much dissatis- faction. True, I have great reason to be thankful that it was then and there that I received, as I trust, my first per- sonal experience of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But, speaking of my three years' course there as to educational improvement, it was certainly a failure. The truth is, I was not prepared to go to college. According to the stan- dard of preparation for the sophomore in Union at that period, I had knowledge enough perhaps of the English language, as well as of the Latin and Greek. But I was a mere boy as to my development of character, mind — yes, a mere child as to the knowledge of men and things, and I spent my three years there to very little purpose. I never made a serious effort at study, and I may say lost most of the advantages of the course, being graduated be- fore I was eighteen years old. I must say with gratitude to Professor Wayland, that he made a personal effort on one occasion to rouse me up to some sense of the value of my opportunities. I was sawing a log of wood for my stove, after recitation hours. He stepped out of his study, came up to me familiarly, took the saw out of my hand, finished the cutting, and then said to me, "Adger, why were you not better prepared with your lesson this morn- ing 'V and he then gave me a very kind and fatherly lec- ture on being more diligent. I must also record here my sincere thankfulness for his earnest and delightful relig- ious instructions to a number of us, whom he met occa- sionally in one of our rooms. In justice also to Dr. ISTott, I must acknowledge that his instructions to the senior class (the text-book, strange to say, being none other than Lord Kames^ Elements of Criticism) were made by him the occasion of giving us what I think we all valued more than anything else in the whole course, viz., many practi- cal lessons as to human nature, and the best way of deal- ing with men and succeeding in all affairs. Dr. l^ott was a great and good man. But after I left college and began to think and observe for myself, I came to under- stand that these instructions were lessons more of policy than of principle, and I became sensible of a very strong 68 MY LIFE AND TIMES. reaction in my mind against his teachings. I was led to renounce entirely his doctrine of expediency, and it is my honest opinion, candidly written here, that if in my public course I have been frequently led into the mainte- nance of extreme opinions, one cause has been disgust with the timid and selfish spirit that always seeks some middle ground. I do not forget what Macaulay tells us of the Marquis of Halifax, who, when taunted with being a trimmer, replied, "Yes, I trim between extremists, as the Temperate zone between the Torrid and the Frigid." This is just like what the "Moderates" of the Church of Scotland said of themselves. I count it a great compli- ment Mdiich my venerable colleague at Columbia Semi- nary, Dr. George Howe, paid me, when he said, "Adger is a man that has no disguises." The astute old President of Union College was the father of many 'New York poli- ticians. The famous William H. Seward, Secretary of State in 1861, was one of them. When I was a boy at college, Mr. Seward came there once, a young and rising lawyer of Central l^ew York ; he came on a visit to his college society, of which I was a member. I gave him an invitation to ride in a buggy with me to the Colioes Falls, seven miles from Schenectady. He honored me by ac- cepting. I have often thought what a change there might have been in the history of the United States if I had happened unfortunately to upset the buggy and broken Seward's neck. Possibly there had been no "irrepressible conflict" in our country between free and slave labor, and possibly no war between the States. And so it turned out, in the good providence and through the grace of God, that the venerable President's apprehensions that the little Southern boy, not yet fifteen years old, would be ruined if his father should leave him at college were not fulfilled. The boy learned neither to use profane language, nor to love whiskey, nor to gamble, nor to practise any other ordinary vices of a dissipated college life. Here I must relate a circumstance, occurring many years after my boyhood. I had been a missionary in Turkey for twelve years, but was at home and sitting at dinner in my father's house. He had several gentle- men guests at his table, and while I sat near to my mother. ACADEMY AND COLLEGE LIFE. 69 who was at the head of the table, I coukl overhear the conversation of the gentlemen at the other end. They were discussing the best way to raise boys. My father was denouncing the too common practice at that time of Southern gentlemen to give the boy his pocket full of cash and set him on a pony with a gun in his hand as the sure road to his ruin, and I even heard him boasting a little of his success in bringing up his son, although he had to send him away from home at an early age. One point he made was that I was not allowed pocket money. Being young and inexperienced and far from home, he had taken Dr. ISTott's advice to remit all money for my ex- penses at college to the treasurer of the institution, who would see to my necessary wants. Then I spoke, and all were ready to listen to my testimony. I modestly re- marked that I did not think this money arrangement had worked so very successfully. I stated that under the ar- rangement I still always had as much money in my pocket as I wanted. I would go to Captain Holland, the treas- urer, from time to time, and he would give me ten, fifteen or twenty dollars, just as I pleased. But I added that I could tell my father what, far more than the lack of pocket money, was the reason why his boy had not been ruined at college. All looked and listened. Then I said, "It was simply breed," then all laughed, the old gentle- man included. CHAPTEK IV. Theological Seminary Life. — Our Marriage and Sailing for Smyrna. — My' Wife^s Ancestry-. 1839-1834. IMMEDIATELY after commencement was over at Union College, in June, 1828, having delivered my little speech and taken leave of college friends, I set out with a class-mate named Benjamin Burroughs, of Savan- nah, to visit ISTiagara Falls. I had been to the Falls once before with my father and mother, when our family and that of Thomas Fleming, Esq., of Philadelphia, my fa- ther's particular friend, had made the trip together from Albany in a passenger canal boat. The great Governor of ]S[ew York, De Witt Clinton, had recently accomplished his great work, the Erie Canal, thus connecting Buffalo City by water all the way with I^ew York. These pas- senger boats gave us tolerably comfortable accommoda- tions, a table for our meals in the day time, and at night berths rigged up for sleeping. It was a novel way of travelling, but very slow, the whole journey of over three hundred miles being performed at a slow trot by a couple of horses driven along the canal bank and dragging the boat after them. It occupied, if I remember rightly, about three days. There were frequent "locks" to be filled, which occupied much time. These locks were built of very solid masonry, each one long enough and wide enough to receive a canal boat. The boat would enter a lock, and its lower gate being closed on the boat, water would be let into the lock by degrees from the upper gate, and so the boat would be raised some ten or fifteen feet, then the upper gates would be opened and the horses beginning again to drag, we were enabled gradually to surmount the highlands which separated Bufi^alo from Albany. Of course, these passenger boats have long since been withdrawn from the canal, l)iit T suppose the freight THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY LIFE, 71 boats have continued during all these seventy years to bring down heavy freights from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic ocean. My friend Burroughs and I didn't fancy canal-boat travelling. We wanted to make the trip by stage, and so we got the opportunity of riding through beautiful Western jSTew York, and being charmed with its many ele- gant villages. We had the company, the pleasant and profitable company, of Alonzo Porter, Esq., of Savannah, and his beautiful wife, and we boys enjoyed ourselves unspeakably. If I remember rightly this trip had been suggested to me by my father, for I still possess a letter from him giving me many hints and much advice about what I should try and see during the journey, so as to obtain the greatest benefit from the same. Once before this, during my college course, he had arranged for me to go with his friend, and subsequently my friend. Judge Mitchell King, of Charleston, who was on his way to attend the com- mencement at Yale College. That was the only time I ever saw the beautiful city of 'New Haven, and all the grand doings at a Yale commencement. The city was beautiful indeed, and the commencement was grand in- deed, though both the city and the college, now the Uni- versity, have become, of course, very much grander. Oh ! the kindness of my father to me ! by no means appreciated then, in my thoughtless bovhood, but understood now, in some measure, as I review my life from the beginning, re-reading some of his old letters and recalling to mind many of his special favors to me, and wondering often- times how I could have failed at the time to perceive and estimate it, and bitterly lamenting how much his exalted hopes respecting me must have been disappointed. I feel sure I was his favorite son at the beginning and for many years, but that subsequently he canie to appreciate both William first, and then Robert, deservedly far above me. I spent the winter and well-nigh the whole year sub- sequent to my graduation chiefly at home in Charleston, but it was not profitably spent; indeed, very far from profitably. I think, as I look back, that I did not grow either in knowledge or in grace ; nevertheless I was led. 72 MY LIFE AND TIMES. I hope I may trust, by the Divine Spirit, to a fixed con- chision that it was my duty to submit myself to a train- ing for the gospel ministry. Accordingly, in September, ^ 1829, I entered the Theological Seminary at Princeton, xwhere I spent almost four years. I found myself here in ^a very different atmosphere from that either of my college or my Charleston life. My fellow-students were all de- voted to the acquisition of sacred learning, and the culti- vation of the spiritual life. Many of them were very godly men. Religious truth filled the very air. Our con- versations were all about the Scriptures. I was thrown into the company and fell under the influence of a num- ber of young men of a deeper Christian experience and a loftier tone of piety than I had ever met. The professors, Drs. Alexander and Miller and Hodge, impressed me as no other Christian ministers had ever done, l^ot only their profound learning, but the saintliness of their char- acter, filled me with awe. The religious exercises in the Seminary, even those where the professors took no part, were of a sort that I had never previously attended. It was not long before I was led to doubt whether I was any way fit to be there. My distress soon came to be un- bearable. I abandoned altogether the hope I had been cherishing, that I was a Christian. It was a dreadful experience. I gave up all study and betook myself to prayer. After a period of great darkness the Lord re- vealed himself to me, and I found peace. It was the beginning for me of a new religious life. I have often questioned whether what I have just now said is strictly true ; certainly I did not now begin to lead a truly holy life, although religious truth did certainly affect me in many ways more than it had previously done. Perhaps I might say I became a better Christian, but I was really a very poor sort of a Christian any way. It was then my belief that I had never been converted before, and that all my previous religious experiences had been absolutely vain and worthless. That is not my judgment now, as I look back upon the whole course of my life ; for if I am to renounce all my religious experiences before I went to Princeton because they were so miserably de- ficient, I must, to be consistent, also renounce those that O^rrcLc^^ y.G-u^ THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY LIFE. 73 followed what I may call my second conversion, because they too have always been certainly miserably deficient. The Christian life is a journey of many steps. We have to rise from a low plane first to one that is higher, but still not high. We have to go from step to step,^ rising from plane to plane, still never reaching the height of true and perfect holiness. We are made perfect only at death. In the Spirit's work of sanctification, except where it is suspended during our periods of spiritual slumbering and sleeping, we die more and more every day unto sin, and we live more and more every day unto righteousness. Then, oh! blessed consummation, the souls of believers, being in death made perfectly holy, do- pass immediately into glory. Princeton Seminary, some seventy years ago, when I attended there, had only one three-story dormitory build- ing, with Dr. Alexander's dwelling on the righthand of it,"and Dr. Hodge's on the left. Dr. Miller's house was in the town, and a number of the students also had their lodgings and found their boarding in the town. Usually two, sometimes three, students occupied one room in the dormitory building. I had my quarters there at the first, and got my meals in the Refectory, where most of the students ate. But I found it a bad plan. Eating our food gregariously was not wholesome. Most of the students had dyspepsia, and I did not escape till I quit the hall and went to board in a private family in the town. What added greatly to the evil was the publication at that very time of a work entitled Dyspepsia Forestalled and Re- sisted. I think the author's name was Hitchcock. Among other features were the most precise directions as to how much a man should eat and drink in a day, so many ounces of food and drink. With a particular friend of mine, a dear and charming fellow, by name Montgomery Harris, from Baltimore, who finished his ministerial course early, I had frequent consultations about dyspepsia and these rules of Hitchcock, in fact we agreed together to measure out our food and drink according to these rules, and to stand by them for one fortnight. We got through alive, but it nearly killed both of us. I found out afterwards that when our Saviour says, "Therefore 74 MY LIFE AND TIMES. take no thought, saying, what shall we eat, or what shall we drink," his words may well be understood and applied literally. Nothing disturbs digestion more effectually than anxious thinking or talking about dietetic rules. It is good now as in apostolic times to eat what is set before us, asking no question. The professors at Princeton in my day were only three in number, but they were as good in every res})cct as could be found at that time in this country. Indeed, all things considered, no three better professors can, in my judgment, be found now in any of the numerous institu- tions of learning and religion all over the land. Dr. Arch- ibald Alexander, formerly a minister in Virginia, stood then at the head of all the theologians of the Presbyterian Church in America. His natural endowments could not be surpassed ; he was a learned and thoroughly sound theologian, and he had all the sagacity and wisdom neces- sary to fit him to preside over a school where a hundred and twenty young men were preparing for the ministry. Above all he was a holy man of God. His wife, born Janet Waddell, was the daughter of the celebrated blind preacher of that name in Virginia, whom Wirt, in his British Spy, has so eloquently described. They had sev- eral sons who rose to eminence, among whom was Joseph Addison Alexander, whose preeminent intellectual abil- ities, varied and profound learning, and extraordinary pulpit qualifications, made him superior to most and in- ferior perhaps to no one of his brethren. Old Dr. Alexander was not only by birth a Southerner, but in all the characteristic features of our people. He was a simple-hearted, straightforward man. In his old age, which was when I knew him, his nervous system was very subject to the influences of the east wind. We youngsters always knew when the wind was blowing from that quarter the moment we looked at the Professor's face when he entered the lecture-room. He must have been, I suppose, under one of these spells when the following incident occurred. There was a student from South Car- olina, a very conscientious and good man, to whom all his brethren looked up with reverence, not of his intellect, but of his heai't. He was unusually advanced as to age, while THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY LIFE. / O as to zeal and piety he was, as it were, the leader, not only of his own class, but all the Seminary. He had taken up the idea of total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks in its extremest form. It became known in the Seminary that the old Doctor denied the soundness of this principle. The venerable student's zeal aspired to the conversion of his teacher. The Doctor patiently con- ferred with him two or three days, but remained impreg- nable to the logic of his zealous visitor. On the third day, so the story goes, the east wind was specially rough, the Professor's patience forsook him, ''Mr. B ," said he, "I made up my mind on this subject before you were born." This argument silenced Brother B , and he retired from the contest. Dr. Samuel Miller, the professor of Church History and Polity, was a perfect gentleman of the old school in manners and character. He was well fitted to publish his work on Clerical Manners and Habits. He was also a sound Presbyterian, and his book on the eldership is a most valuable volume. Before he was made professor at Princeton he had been one of the leading ministers of New York City at a time when those words signified a great deal more of what is respectable than they do now. He was greatly revered by all us students for his urban- ity, learning and piety. If he could appear now in the midst of the Presbytery of ISTew York just as he looked and as he was when I last saw him, I fear he would neither recognize nor be recognized by the majority of that body. The two old professors differed not much in age, but the habits of their life were very different. Dr. Miller was very regular and methodical in all his ways. He regularly took his constitutional walks. Old Dr. Alex- ander almost never left his study. When I have seen him at great intervals of time slowly walking through the streets of Princeton, it was amusing to observe how, as he strolled along, he would look at every house and almost every object on the street, just as you might expect a man who had not for twelve months seen anything but the books in his library. It was said that Dr. Miller fre- quently remonstrated with him for neglecting to go out 76 MY LIFE AND TIMES. and get the fresh air and stretch his limbs, but his col- league always replied that "bodily exercise profiteth lit- tle." These two were grand old men. I was an occa- sional visitor in their families, and have to thank both of them for very great kindness to me. I went to Asia Minor after my four years' course in the Seminary, and three years afterwards, namely, in 1837, the Presbyte- rian Church was rent by the new school controversy, and the excision of four large Western synods. Before this took place, and while the controversy was still at its height, I received two very long autograph letters from . good old Dr. Alexander, each letter consisting of eight pages about a foot long, and fully as wide, saying that, as I was in foreign lands, he would try and keep me posted as to what was going on. I still have these letters in my possession. Dr. Charles Hodge spent some time at the Universities in Germany before he entered on his professorship. Dur- ing my course at Princeton he w^as our teacher in He- brew and the Greek of the jS^ew Testament. I do not remember that, besides this latter, he gave us any special exegetical instruction. He was a very lovable man, mild ■ and sweet and gentle wath us all, but I do not think he I was a good teacher. He roused in us no enthusiasm for I either of the Bible languages, nor was he a good preacher. He gave the force of his mind, I think, to the study of theology. The new school controversy was then becom- ing quite earnest. Dr. Hodge was editor of the Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review. In these pages ap- peared many forcible articles from his pen. Professor Stuart, of Andover Seminary, published his Commen- tary on Romans, which took the JSTew School side. Dr. Hodge at first reviewed with great ability Professor Stu- art's work, and then subsequently published his commen- tary on the same epistle, which, I believe, to a great extent neutralized the poison there was in the Andover book. It w^as a great success, and lifted Dr. Hodge at once to a high rank amongst theologians. Dr. Hodge treated me with great kindness, and so did his good wife, the first Mrs. Hodge. Well do I remember the future Dr. Archi- bald Hodge, a missionary first to India, and then the dis- THEOLOGICAL SEMINAEY LIFE. 77 tingiiislicd successor of his father, as he used to run about the Seminary grounds a flaxen-haired, blue-eyed, rosy- cheeked little boy of seven or eight summers, and one or two of his little brothers with him. Dr. Charles Hodge was a great theologian. His three ponderous volumes on Systematic Theology are a treasure to any of the thou- sand ministers who were his students while he lived, and should be to his students now that he is dead. But Dr. Hodge never studied the church polity of Presbyterian- ism. He never understood the subject. His debate with Dr. Thornwell in the Assembly at Kochester, the last one where the South and N'orth portions of the church met together, exhibited this deficiency on the part of the great teacher. Much more apparent he made it when he under- took to discuss that debate in the Princeton Review; and when Dr. Thornwell replied to him in the Southern Pres- byterian Review, it became wofully palpable. Any one can see for himself what I have said, for both productions appear in the fourth volume of Dr. Thornwell's collected writings, where also appear the reports of their discus- sion in that last Assembly. That was an impressive occa- sion, the ISTorthern church and her Southern sister coming together for the last time in the persons of their two lead- ing representatives, and taking their respective stands on very great ecclesiastical issues preparatory to their sep- aration. At Princeton I formed the acquaintance of quite a number of young men who subsequently played important parts on the stage of life. It was there I first saw Robert J. Breckinridge, though I did not become at all ac- quainted with him, neither was he one of those young men just referred to. He had become eminent at the bar, but was converted, gave up that profession and entered the Presbyterian ministry, and spent a few months at Prince- ton, not as a student, but as a visitor. He was conferring, I suppose, with our professors about church matters. At Princeton I first knew C. C. Jones, the famous apostle to the negroes in Liberty county, Ga., afterwards a pro- fessor at Columbia Seminary, and subsequently the Home Missionary Secretary of the then undivided Presbyterian Church. I translated into the Armenian language and 78 MY LIFE AND TIMES. published at Smyrna, witli certain alterations necessary to accommodate it to its new use, the catechism of simple gospel truth which he wrote for his negro disciples. As a primary manual for Armenian inquirers and believers perhaps no book issued by our press in Smyrna could have been more acceptable or more useful. It seemed to furnish them just what they wanted to know about the fundamental principles of Protestant doctrine. At Princeton I also became acquainted pretty well with Henry A. Boardman, and, still better, with Cortlandt Van Rensselaer^ both eminent afterw^ards as Presbyte- rian ministers. I had a room in the same private house with Van Rensselaer, and ate with him at the same table. He was one of ISTature's noblemen. It was he whom, when high in ecclesiastical office as the Secretary of one of the Boards, and wielding deservedly wide influence all over the church from his well-known ability, but especially from his exalted character as a man, Dr. Breckinridge pronounced to be the most dangerous man in the Presby- terian Church — dangerous because, as he considered him, infected with the slack-twisted Presbyterianism still somewhat prevalent in the Old School party, after the excision of the J^ew School body. Dr. Breckinridge meant this as the high compliment which it was. He greatly respected Van Rensselaer, as did everybody else. I also became well acquainted with Nathan L. Rice, cele- brated afterwards all over the West for the various public controversies which he successfully maintained with Campbell and others, and even more famous perhaps for the distinguished part he played on the right side in the 'New School controversy of 1835, '36 and '37. Rice was my senior by several years, and had been for some time in the Presbyterian ministry before he came to Princeton. Of course, he was able to teach me, and he did teach me many things in theology I had not otherwise learned. Our acquaintance was intimate and proved very valuable to me. At Princeton I again met with my old Union Col- lege friend, Jo/in McDowell, the man of God of an humble spirit and a loving heart, but a fiery and yet most tender zeal. He distinguished himself as the apostle of the Five Points in New York City. Then there was John C. THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY LIFE. Y9 Lowrie. He was for some years a missionary in India, or possibly in China, where his brother was killed by Chinese pirates. John C. Lowrie was afterwards Secretary for many years of the jSTorthern Presbyterian Board of For- eign Missions, along with his father, the eminent Walter Lowrie, Esq., and also our John Leighton Wilson. I was very intimate with both Armstrong and Alexander, who spent their lives as missionaries to the Sandwich Islands. Then there were Joseph Barr and John B. Pinney, who were sent out to Africa to explore the country with a view to returning afterwards and settling there as missionaries. Pinney was an enthusiastic Christian man, of fair edu- cation, and remarkable energy of character. I think he never became a missionary in Africa, but his whole life was devoted to work for that continent in some form or other. He was for many years Governor of the Liberian Republic of American negroes at Monrovia, on the coast of Africa. Joseph Barr was a much stronger man, full of foreign missionary zeal. He enthused us all on his return from his exploring trip by telling us of some mis- sionary to whom a heathen man once came, asking, "Are you Jesus Christ man ?" ''My brethren," said Barr to us, "which of you would not be glad to go and be a Jesus Christ man amongst some heathen people, pointing out to them the way of salvation ?" But Barr was never priv- ileged to go himself. A very short time after he returned from Africa, he was seized with fatal sickness and called up. I have not yet mentioned the name of Edward Tonge Buist, with whom I enjoyed one of the most intimate and profitable friendships I had at Princeton. His was a vigorous and active intellect, and he was very fond of discussion on theological points. We helped to sharpen in one another the spirit of inquiry and research, for, in after years, he frequently told me that mine was perhaps the most profitable friendship he had ever formed. He and I were partners in a Sunday-school, in conducting which we alternated every Sunday afternoon, some four miles from the Seminary. This plan of use- fulness to others prevailed greatly amongst the students, and was very advantageous also to themselves. At one period of my Princeton course, I belonged to a committee 80 MY LIFE AND TIMES. of students who were conveyed every Sunday morning- down to the city of Trenton, some ten or twelve miles be- low Princeton, where we had a Sunday-school among the convicts in the State's prison. This was another oppor- tunity of usefulness to others and not less to ourselves. While we were thus engaged, the Asiatic cholera visited the United States. There were a number of cases in the New Jersey State's Prison. Our Sunday-school teachers, nevertheless, kept up the school. We frequently had oc- casion to sit by the bedside of the sick and dying, giving them religious instruction and comfort. All these my early friends at Princeton, T believe, have passed over the river before me ; I think I have survived them all. But I have not yet named the man — and he, too, has already passed over — who more affected my fu- ture life than all these others put together. This was my class-mate, William M. Thomson, a Northwestern Pres- byterian, a man of rough exterior, but he wielded a pol- ished pen, had plenty of brains and became a distin- guished missionary for a half century amongst the Arabs in Syria. He was the author of The Land and the Booh and other very valuable works. Thomson said to me one afternoon, "Adger, let us walk down to the river and take a bath." As we were re- turning together, he asked if I had ever thought of becom- ing a foreign missionary. I replied that we were in such great need of more ministers at the South that it had never entered my mind to consider that subject. We talked over the subject as we walked back, and, repairing to my room together, we continued our conference till bed-time. The subject thus casually brought to my at- tention, took an immediate and very strong hold upon me. I saw at once that great as might be the need of more min- isters in my own State every heathen nation was incom- parably more destitute. The deep interest thus excited never left me for a day until after years of careful and prayerful consideration I was led to offer my services to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mis- sions. They consisted of Congregationalists and Presby- terians together. At that period our church had no sep- arate organization for foreign work. A society had just THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY LIFE. 81 arisen somewhere in Pennsylvania, named the Western Foreign Missionary Society, which in after years came to represent the whole Presbyterian body. But at the time of my engagement with the Boston Board I knew little or nothing of it. I found out after some time that my friend Thomson belonged to a secret association of Princeton men, all specially interested in foreign missions, who made it their business to bring that subject to the attention of indi- viduals in their respective classes. They were thus a body of propagandists. ISTone of those whom they approached suspected that they had been selected to be operated on. Still later I found out that within this informal associa- tion there was another more formal and more secret one, consisting only of those who had made up their mind to embark in the work. Thus there was a wheel within a wheel, and both of them worked efficiently. Old Dr. Alexander, several times, met with us in this inside organ- ization, and we got from him a great deal of useful in- struction and advice. We also had a "Society of Inquiry on Missions," which held public meetings, and different committees read reports about the various heathen lands. I entered the Seminary September, 1829, and con- tinued a member of it until the close of the Seminary year, 1833, when I was licensed by ISTew Brunswick Pres- bytery. But we had a vacation of three or four weeks in the spring. In the spring of 1831 I visited my home in Charleston, and there, in the good providence of God, I first saw my future wife. Miss Elizabeth Keith Shrews- bury. I was returning from a prayer-meeting with my mother and sister Margaret. At the corner of Mary and King streets my sister observed the above named young lady, with whom she had recently become very intimately acquainted, on the other side of King street, engaged in the duty of tract distribution. She called to her to come ^ over. It required some little urging to get her consent, but she came. My sister said to me, "ISTow you shall see blushes," and I saw them. I was introduced to her, and with me it was love at first sight. My sister persuaded her to go up home with us to take tea, and then accom- pany us to another religious service. I walked with the J 82 MY LIFE AND TIMES. blooming stranger, and my first impressions were deep- ened. I visited her several times, and every Sunday took pains to slip into the infant school-room, where she taught some fifty little pupils. I stood at the door behind her back, and was charmed with her methods of interesting and instructing those little ones. My sister very soon charged me with being fascinated. I told her I certainly was, "and now," said I, "as you sympathize strongly with me in being attracted to a foreign missionary life, you must see if, when I return to the Seminary, you cannot interest your friend's mind in the same subject, and, as you are occasionally exchanging notes with one another, you must sometimes send me one of her notes for my in- spection." The following spring I returned again to Charleston, and after two or three interviews with the lady who on my previous visit had so deeply interested me, my mind was made up, that she was the one I wished to marry. But I did not then immediately propose to her. While my thoughts were thus absorbed with the great subject of the foreign propagation of the Christian faith, and while I was very seriously engaged in making prepa- rations, if providentially permitted to take part in that work, the State of South Carolina, but especially the city of Charleston, was agitated to its very centre with the question of nullification. This agitation, if I am well in- formed, began in 1824, when Judge William Smith, the old leader of the Crawford party in South Carolina, offered in the Legislature at Columbia certain anti-bank, anti-internal improvement and anti-tariff resolutions. My father was a great admirer of Mr. Crawford, and also of Judge William Smith. Judge Smith in those days was Mr. Calhoun's stiff State Rights opponent, at whom this whole original movement was aimed. Judge Smith triumphed for the time, obtained the party predomi- 'nance in the State, and was sent back, as he desired, to his seat in the United States Senate. But logic was not the Judge's fort, as it was Mr. Calhoun's. The South Carolina resolutions of Judge Smith were levelled against the general government usurpations, as he thought them, but his abler opponent educed from his adversary's own THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY LIFE, 83 principles a remedy he had not thought of, and which was to end in a direct conilict between the Federal and State authorities. The discussions which for six years had been agitating the State in 1831 culminated, and the urgent issue was whether it was expedient to interpose the sov- ereign power of South Carolina to prevent the execution of the tariff laws. There were great and noble men in lead of both sides. The conflict enlisted every person, great and small, male and female. My father belonged to the party which claimed the name of the Union and State Eights party. Like multitudes of other very busy men, he turned aside largely from his daily occupations to the great question which was convulsing our State. He was very desirous to have me attend some of the public meet- ings, but my mind was too much preoccupied with still greater questions. Yet, one morning I was terrified when I heard him relate what had happened the previous night. Each party was having a large gathering of its followers. It was evident that a bloody encounter would ensue should the opposing crowds happen to meet upon the dissolution of their assemblies. That eminent citizen, Joel R. Poin- sett, was just at that time the leader of the Union party in Charleston. At the close of their meeting, and when his crowd were about to go forth in the expectation of a fearful rencounter with their opponents that night, Mr. Poinsett, taking out a key from his pocket, opened a door leading from the hall where they were assembled into an adjoining apartment, which was in fact a spacious closet. He had had a large supply of clubs stored up there for just this very occasion, and he invited every one of his fol- lowers to help himself to a club. Thus armed they issued forth, and, behold ! as they marched along, there were seen on the other side of one of our streets the many hun- dreds who belonged to the other party. Each party marched and counter-marched on each side of the street, and one party certainly, and the other party probably, were both prepared for a bloody encounter. There was jeering on both sides, but the leaders, a kind providence watching over our city, managed to prevent their fol- lowers from coming to a contest in the middle of the street. I listened with trembling thankfulness to this 84 MY LIFE AND TIME§. narrative. Lofty and grand is patriotic sentiment, when it is sincere, Duice et decorum est pro patria mori. But alas ! that every true man can be so easily and so power- fully roused about his country's welfare, and yet Chris- tian men are generally so indifferent to the grandest en- terprise that ever stirred the human heart — the enterprise of proclaiming to the whole of this ruined world the glorious gospel of salvation. As intimated above, my sister Margaret, who had shortly before that period, renounced the world and de- voted herself to her Lord, had become very much inter- ested in the subject of foreign missions, so much so that she fully intended entering on that work with me. When addressed subsequently by her future husband, she had objected that her intention was to go on the foreign work with her brother John, he instantly replied, "There will be no difficulty on that point." He added he would gladly go along with us, that before crossing the Atlantic he had offered his services to the London Missionary So- ciety, but it was considered that his constitution was inadequate to such a life. He became and continued for forty years pastor of the Second Presbyterian church. If the South Carolina Synod has been ever since about 1833 peculiarly alive in some degree (but, oh ! how small that degree) to the claims of the foreign mission work, I here record what will be generally acknowledged by those who know best, that this has been due, through Almighty grace, in very large measure, to the missionary zeal of Dr. Thomas Smyth. My sister Susan also became very early interested in the idea of going on a mission, but her constitution forbade the carrying out of such an idea, and, as afterwards plainly appeared, her true vocation was to stay by her parents, and especially to take care of her father in his extreme old age. As to my loving mother, she never betrayed to me the slightest unwilling- ness to consent to what I was proposing ; she was far too devoted a Christian to do that. But how was it going to be with my father ? The most delicate and difficult duty of my life had been for me to address him privately and personally on the subject of his soul's salvation ; and he had listened to me kindly and heard patiently all I THEOLOGICAL, SEMINARY LIFE. 85 had to say ; and he had subsequently, and, I feel sure, in all sincerity, made a public profession of his faith in Christ. But here now was another delicate and difficult subject for me to bring before his mind, and what would he say about it ? He must have been aware of my being interested in the general subject. I had never consulted him respecting my entering the ministry and going to Princeton to prepare for it, because from my early child- hood it was always predicted by my godly old grand- mother that I was to be a minister, and that seemed to be always taken for granted by my father. But to go as a missionary to some foreign country, never to return home (for three-score years ago that was always understood to be the foreign missionary's lot, and no idea of a furlough to return for a year was ever thought of), this, I say, was a very different question from entering the ministry for service in this country. How, therefore, was my father going to receive what I had to say on this subject'^ I was led to introduce the subject to him in connection with asking his consent to my engaging myself to the young lady I was in love with. He had seen her frequently at his house with his daughter Margaret ; she had been in- troduced to him, of course, but he was a very busy man, and his personal acquaintance with her was really very slight. I told him of my attachment to her and my wish respecting her, enlarging considerably, of course, as I went on upon my high estimate of her character and merits. I saw the characteristic, merry twinkle in his eye, as he replied to me, "Oh ! there remain always as good fish in the sea as ever were caught." I remarked that "a fisherman always angles for the kind of fish that he prefers to have." When I told him that I felt much impressed with the idea that I ought to devote my life to the foreign service of the church, and that it was not every young lady that would be willing to go, or that would be qualified to go with me, he at once became very serious, expressing his high opinion of Miss Shrews- bury's character, but saying that he thought it would be wiser to postpone the decision of my own future course of life, and also of my engagement to her. He said that he would prefer my finishing my studies at Princeton, and 86 MY LIFE AND TIMES. then going to Germany for some years, that I might pros- ecute them there. Oh ! that father of mine ! How kindly his feelings always were towards me and what lofty ex- pectations he always cherished regarding my career. It often pains me to think how much I disappointed him. It pains me even now, and perhaps even more than it ever did, as I look back upon all these things through the long vista of many years. I had not at that time committed myself either to Miss Shrewsbury or to any person on the subject of my becoming a foreign missionary. But the feeling of duty within me was very strong, and an).ounted very nearly, though not altogether to a decisive conviction. I saw very plainly that the generous proposals of my father would completely revolutionize all my inward tendencies. I felt no special aspirations after eminent scholarship. I saw and felt that the whole world, as the Apostle John said, lieth in wickedness ; that there ought to be many, while there were but few, volunteers for for- eign service ; that, while I might be needed at the South, there was incomparably greater need in heathen lands ; that there was no particular obstacle, as with some others, in the way of my entering on this work ; and all these views having long and deeply impressed themselves on my heart, I could not easily dismiss them. I do not re- member in what terms I responded to my noble father's gracious proposition, but I hope I properly expressed my sense of his goodness to me. But I recollect telling him, as we closed the conversation, that I understood him as having no positive objection to my making the engage- ment I had in view, in case I should finally conclude on that step. Many years have passed and memory has not recorded distinctly what the words of his answer were, but I felt sure that he did not mean to oppose, and it was not long before the engagement was made. I returned to Princeton, and spent one year more there. In the mean- time, I had offered my services to the American Board, and was accepted, and not long afterwards was appointed a missionary to the Armenians. I spent the winter of 1833 and spring of 1834 in visiting the Presbyterian churches of our synod, and presenting the claims of the foreign mission work upon them. OUE MARRIAGE AND SAILING FOR SMYRNA. b i Some of my ^randcliildreii, when reading the account I have just given, may be inclined to wonder that I did not confer with my father when I first began to consider seriously the question of foreign work. The Apostle Paul's example shows that there are some questions where we may not confer with flesh and blood. My father at that initial period was not a professing Christian, and the question with me was a question of conscience. More- over, both my father and my mother, whilst holding firmly in their hands the reins of parental authority, and, whilst we all looked up to them with profound reverence, and whilst my father especially had never laid the weight of one finger upon any one of his children, because one word from him was absolute law ; still they had, both of them, always encouraged us in regard to some matters to think for ourselves. And then I had been sent far away to college in the State of ISTew York for three years, and was afterwards far away again in JSTew Jersey at the Sem- inary for four years, so that I had been trained as it were to rely on the resources of my own judgment. In my own case, as a father, I pursued a somewhat similar course. Whilst endeavoring to instruct my children as to all that was right or wrong, I never tried to have them become mere machines. I encouraged in each of them freedom of thought and, to a proper extent, freedom of action. Becoming naturally much better acquainted with his future daughter-in-law after our engagement, my father came to be extremely fond of her, and, in fact, before very long, began to treat her as one of his o^vn daughters. We were married on the 29th day of June, 1834. The time drew nigh for my ordination, and in the Second Presby- terian church I was solemnly set apart by the Charleston Union Presbytery to the work of foreign missions. An immense audience gathered to witness the laying on of the Presbytery's hands. Before setting out I wrote and published a farewell letter to my friends throughout the State, giving them my reasons for the step I was taking. It was a day of weeping when my wife and I parted from her relatives and mine. My father accompanied us to ISTew York and Boston. So did my brother James. The little brig that was to carry us to Smyrna was not quite 88 MY LIFE AND TIMES. ready to sail. We had also some purchases for our outfit to make in Boston. Having no occupation whilst we were making our purchases, the time hung heavy on my father's hands. I saw that he was much distressed at the prospect of separation, and at last I begged him to leave us. He started home early the next morning by stage. I went down with him and saw him in the stage, and my brother James subsequently informed me that, as they started off, my father laid his hands on the back of the seat before him, and bowed his head upon his hands and wept audibly and profusely. As for me, that was the bitterest hour of my life — up to that period. I had left my mother with my father to take care of her ; but the thought that oppressed me -was, who was I leaving behind me to take care of my father ? The ancestors of my wife were English. Two brothers by the name of Stone came to this country very long ago from Bermuda. One of these brothers married a Miss Leycraft, who was my wife's great-grandmother, and their daughter. Miss Elizabeth Stone, for whom my wife was named, married John Conyers, Avho died in 1709. Their daughter married Edward Shrewsbury, and they were the parents of my wife. John Conyers and his wnfe, and also Edward Shrewsbury and his wife, lie in the Archdale Street church-yard, Charleston, S. C. As to the ancestry of my wife's father, Edward Shrews- bury, that also was pure English. Dr. Joseph Johnson, in his valuable volume, says two wealthy young English- men named Shrewsbury came to this country with one sister before the Revolutionary war. Edward, one of these two brothers, was a Royalist. He had a right to be loyal to his king and his owm country. Stephen, the other brother, was an equally earnest Whig, and bore arms in the Revolutionary war. Their sister was married to Jere- miah Dickinson. These two brothers, Stephen being the older, carried on, after the Revolutionary war, the busi- ness of ship-building on Shrewsbury's Wharf, afterwards known as Union Wharves. In an old list of members of the Charleston Fellowship Society, Stephen Shrewsbury's name is recorded in 1770 or thereafter. He had three sons, Stephen, Edward and Jeremiah. Stephen Shrews- MY WIFE S ANCESTRY. 0\) bur J, Jr.'s, name is found on the list of members of the Fellowship Society in 1790 or thereafter. The posterity of Jeremiah Shrewsbury are still living in Alabama. Edward Shrewsbury had five children — Elizabeth Keith (my wife), Anne HoUinshed, John Stoney, Edward and Maria. Stephen Shrewsbury, Jr., married his cousin. Miss Dickinson. Two daughters were born to him — Louisa and Caroline ; Louisa, afterwards Mrs. Dr. Moul- trie, and Caroline, who married her cousin, Jeremiah Dickinson. Stephen Shrewsbury left a considerable for- tune to his two daughters, but in case they died without children it was to go to the families of his two brothers, Edward and Jeremiah. Stephen died in 1815, and in 1882 the property at last came to my wife and her brothers and sisters, and to their Alabama cousins. I will hereafter give a much more full account of this matter. My wife's mother was a member of the Circular church, Charleston. Her father was for many years one of a ship-building firm, when Charleston carried on that, kind of business. The firm was Pritchard and Shrews- bury. But their business declined with the decline of ship-building in the old city. My wife's father died of paralysis in his old age. He never made a public pro- fession of religion, but I have in my possession a long and very touching letter written to my wife, which bears very ample evidence that for some time before his death he was a very humble believer in our Lord and Saviour. CHAPTER V. Life Among the Armenians. 1834-1846. THE brig Padang sailed from Boston, Massachusetts, on her voyage to Smyrna, Asia Minor, on the 2d day of August, 1834. She carried seven missionary pas- sengers— the Rev. Mr. Merrick, missionary to the Per- sians; Rev. Samuel R. Houston and wife, missionaries to Greece ; Rev. Lorenzo Pease and wife, missionaries to the Island of Cyprus, and myself and wife, missionaries to the Armenians. Mr. Merrick was originally from New England, and studied theology at Columbia Semi- nary. Mr. Pease was from ISTew England, and was a Congregationalist. Mr. Houston was from Virginia, a Presbyterian, and got his theological education at Union Seminary, Virginia, and partly at Princeton. The Padang had very poor accommodations for so many passengers, on such a long voyage. But it was hard to find a vessel setting out from Boston to Smyrna for a cargo of figs that could furnish any better. It had only one small cabin of four berths, with two small state-rooms attached. Mr. ]\Ierrick was given, of course, the main cabin for his accommodation. There was, therefore, necessary for the third married couple a small state-room cut off from the hold of the vessel. It allowed room for a double bed, with just additional space enough for one chair. But it was not high enough for a person to stand in it upright. Of the two original state-rooms, one was considerably better than the other, the second one being really very much contracted in its dimensions. We three young men had to determine how these three apartments Avere to be distributed amongst us and our wives. We were all very polite and unselfish, and each one of us, of course, declined the best state-room in favor of the other two. Dr. Wisner, Secretary of the Board, had charge of our debarkation, and overheard our talk on this subject. LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 91 "jSTow," said he, "my young brethren, this will not do at all. You are none of you sea-sick yet, but when you see your wiv^es begin to suffer from this malady, this present generosity of feeling will all vanish. You must draw lots, and so let the matter be determined providentially for each one of you." We drew lots, and Houston got the best room. Pease second best, and my poor wife and I got the worst one. She was desperately sea-sick nearly the whole sixty-four days' passage, and sometimes I was afraid that her strength would not hold out to reach Smyrna. Upon our arrival there, the Eev. Daniel Temple, the American Board's missionary to the Greeks there, with Mr. Homan Halleck in charge of their printing ofEce, came on board to welcome us. But there came also the Rev. Josiah Brewer, not of that Board, and I accepted his invitation to go to his house, while the others found ac- conunodations with Mr. Temple and Mr. Halleck. We found Mrs. Brewer a very charming lady, and she and my wife immediately became very close friends, and the friendship continued for years until Mr. Brewer and his family removed to America. Mrs. Brewer was the daughter of an old Congregationalist minister at Lenox, Massachusetts. Her brother, David Dudley Field, was an eminent lawyer in IsTew York, and another of her brothers is Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. Her little son, David Josiah, whom I knew in Smyrna as a little fellow with a big head, I encountered in 1890, while on my way to Kansas City, in the mag- nificent person of the Hon. David J. Brewer, of the Supreme Court in the United States, and chairman of the committee appointed by President Cleveland to in- vestigate the territorial questions between Venezuela and Great Britain. I happened to sit near him, and was attracted by his fine countenance and grand bodily presence. Finding out the name of this remarkable per- sonage, I introduced myself to him, and then introduced him to my wife and daughter Susan, the latter born, like himself, in Smyrna, to whom he expressed the pleasure he had in meeting one of his fellow-citizens. I had been sent out as a missionary to the Armenians, 92 MY LIFE AND TIMES. the Eev. William Goodell and the Kev. H. G. O. Dwight having preceded me as the first missionaries to that people, and the Rev. Cjrus Hamlin having followed me as the fourth one. But who are the Armenians ? The Armenians are undoubtedly descended from Japhet, the second son of jSToah. On no account can they be consid- ered either a Semitic or a Hamitic race. Their physiog- nomy distinguishes them from the children of Shem, and their color from those of Ham. The Rev. Frederick Davis Greene, author of the Armenian Crisis in Turkey, a very competent authority, says, "Their manners and customs, as well as their religious beliefs in heathenism, were similar to those of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, of the Medes and Persians, and still later of the Parthians." But it is their ancient language, among the very most an- cient of the whole world, which most distinctly points them out as the sons of Japhet. Scholars have frequently asserted its affinity with the Indo-Germanic tongues. I can affirm from a somewhat intimate acquaintance with the Armenian, both ancient and modern, that it has a very dis- tinct relation to the Latin language in the construction of its verbs, as well as in the termination of that large class of its nouns which end in tio. Yet no person hearing the Armenian spoken could possibly imagine that there was the least resemblance to the Latin in either of these re- spects or any other. Certainly the rough and harsh guttural sounds of the Armenian language would utterly forbid his entertaining such a thought. This feature of the language is not at all due to its being, as commonly now spoken by the people, so much mixed with Turkish words, because the Turkish language deals comparatively in smooth sounds. The Armenians trace their history to the very remotest antiquity. Their original country is referred to in Gen- esis as Ararat, the mountain where l^oah's ark rested after the flood. In 2 Kings xix. the parricidal sons of Sennacherib are said to have fled to Armenia. Ezekiel also speaks of Tyre being furnished with horses and mules from the land of Togarmah, and the tradition of the Ar- menians, as I have myself heard it stated by the highly educated amongst them, derives their descent, as well as LIFE AMO:SJG THE arme:n^iaj:^s. 93 their name, from this same Togarmah, a son of Gomer, one of the patriarchs of the Japhetic line. Armenia was included in the conquests of Alexander the Great, and afterwards submitted to the rule of Syria. In 190 B. C, when Antiochus the Great was defeated by Scipio, Armenia gave refuge to the exiled Hannibal. Armenia lying between the Persian and the Roman Em- pires, was continually preyed on by both, and the Roman historian, Tacitus, says that her people "were almost always at war ; with the Romans through hatred, and with the Parthians through jealousy." Under Theodo- sius the Great, 390 A. D., Armenia was divided between the Romans and Persians. Subsequently it was divided between the Greek Empire and the Saracens. But in lO-iS the whole eastern frontier was laid open to the Seljouk Turks. In 1071 A. D. the whole of Asia Minor lay at the mercy of the Seljouks. At the close of the fourteenth century Timour the Tartar devastated the whole of Armenia. In 1605 Shah Abbas, of Persia, transplanted twelve thousand Armenian families to Ispahan. The history of the Armenian church dates back to the commencement of the third century. As early as the time of Tertullian, who lived about 201 A. D., there were flourishing communities of Christians in Armenia, who, towards the close of the century, endured much persecu- tion from the Persian fire-worshippers. But in 302 Gregory Loosavoritch, i. e., "The Enlightener," became the apostle of the Armenians, and converted the whole nation. But before this time Christianity had largely degenerated. The simple preaching of the gospel, and a purely spiritual worship had given place to the practice of external rites and ceremonies, and to discussions about the refinements of theological speculation. Gregory him- self partook largely of the monastic spirit of his time, and it was more than one hundred years after this before Mesrob invented their alphabet, and, with Isaac, his teacher, translated the Scriptures into their language, and this ancient version still exists, standing very high in the esteem of all scholars. But three-score years ago the Armenian people gen- 94 MY LIFE AND TIMES. erallj were unable to read this translation of the Scrip- tures. Accordingly, there prevailed an almost universal ignorance of the fundamental truths of the gospel. The evangelical doctrine of faith was unknown. Faith was with them a receiving of whatever the church teaches. Of justifying faith they had hardly even heard. They were taught to confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but they knew little of the sanctifying power and grace of the Holy Spirit. ''What must I do to be saved ?" was to them an unnecessary question, since all baptized persons are saved already. And so their whole knowledge of Christ was to learn when and how to make the sign of the cross, when and how to fast, what church feast days to observe, how often to confess, and when to receive the con- secrated wafer from the priest's hands. The Armenians have a regular hierarchy, consisting of nine distinct orders, its head being the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin in the Caucasus. The business of the priest- hood is not to instruct the people, but, to a large degree, to perform certain ceremonies, which had, however, in- herently a power to save the soul. The original idea of the Christian ministry is totally lost. Priesthood has taken its place ; sacrificing and sanctifying have driven out preaching. Well-nigh absolute are the powers of this priesthood. Baptism is essential to salvation, and yet baptism belongs to the priest. He transubstantiates the wafer into the body, soul and divinity of Christ. The people must both eat and worship this wafer ; and so an- other essential to salvation is also in the priest's hands. Confession to the priest is another essential. Thus they keep the conscience of the people. From time to time they probe the wounds made by their sins and must re- main masters of all their secrets. They also pronounce the pardon of the sinner. Finally, they hold the terrific power of excommunication. Under this sentence a man is not spoken to by any one, none buy at his shop, l^one dare sell or give him food. His spirit, when he dies, is shut out from the kingdom of heaven, and his l)ody is denied Christian burial, i^ay, more, it never consumes in any grave, but is possessed of an evil spirit, which causes the accursed excommunicant to wander about at night and allows him no rest. LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 95 The Catholicos at Etchmiadzin is, as I have said, the ecclesiastical head of all the Armenians. But the Arme- nian subjects of the Sultan are represented at his court bj an officer called the Armenian Patriarch. This is al- ways a bishop, who pays a large sum into the Sultan's treasury for his official position and political and ecclesi- astical power. He sells bishoprics to reimburse himself with a large profit. Bishops must sell priesthoods to re- imburse th^iselves with a profit, and the priests must reimburse themselves by charges on the people for their priestly functions. Great is the power of the Armenian ecclesiastics. But perhaps the real lords paramount among these people are the rich Armenians of Constanti- nople, who are the bankers of the Sultan and all his pashas, and therefore able to make their power felt through all the empire. Such was the condition of the Armenian people and of their ecclesiastical and political affairs sixty or seventy years ago. The reader who desires to know what progress has been made amongst them during this period, by the blessing of God, from the labors of American missionaries and other good influences, may turn to Appendix A of this volume, where is presented a trustworthy, yet remarkable, statement. In the year 1894 the Turkish Sultan Abdul Hamid per- petrated a massacre of the Sassoun villages of Armenians below the city of Moosh, in ancient Armenia, at which the civilized world was made to stand aghast. That was one of a series of such barbarous acts of cruelty and op- pression towards a subject race as history has seldom recorded. In Appendix B of this volume the reader will find some account of these atrocities. Considered as men, the Armenians are a sober, temper- ate, thoughtful, industrious, patient, persevering race. Of a genius decidedly commercial and manifesting every- where a growing spirit of patriotism, they bear a stronger resemblance to the Anglo-Saxons than any other Oriental people. They are not void of courage, and have well learned fortitude in their long school of suffering. They have little taste for either music or poetry. They are not so light-minded, imaginative or versatile as the Greek; 96 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. less dull and sluggish than the Turks ; less degraded and wretched than the remnant of Israel, that other peeled and downtrodden people. Like the Jews, they are also a scattered race. Very numerous in ancient times, the desolating wars of long ages in the past and the cruel massacres they have been suffering in recent times have greatly reduced their numbers, so that their population cannot now exceed four million. It is computed that 2,500,000 are under the Sultan, 1,200,000 in Kussia, 150,000 in Persia. Westward they have proceeded to Trieste, Venice, Vienna and Amsterdam, and probably there are not less than seven thousand in jSTew York. !N"u- merous in Constantinople, and also all through Asia Minor, especially in its central portion, they are also to be found in Syria, and, in fact, they are dispersed throughout the continent of Asia from Constantinople to Calcutta, and as far eastward as Batavia, in Java. It is this fact of their wide dispersion that constitutes the im- portance of the Armenians as a field for evangelical Chris- tian labor. The gospel in its purity and power accepted by this race, scattered among so many nations, would constitute a leaven that should strongly aid in leavening all Asia. Having thus elaborately answered the question, Wlio are the Armenians ? I proceed to speak of Messrs. Goodell and Dwight, my predecessors in the Armenian work. They were stationed at Constantinople, and their work was amongst the many thousands of Armenians in that great city. Before their arrival, there had begun to be manifested in Constantinople a spirit of earnest, religious inquiry amongst some young men of the Armenian people. The Rev. William Goodell, stationed at Constantinople before Mr. Dwight came, had a more general commission, but could communicate with the Armenians through his knowledge of Turkish, with which all the Armenians are familiar. Two young men, Hohannes and Senekerim by name, had called on him, desirous to learn Protestant doctrines. As soon as Mr. Dwight came and was able to speak the Armenian language they became his disciples, and brought him others of like spirit. He had a room in a khan, in one of the bazaars, and usually spent his days LIFE AM0:N'G the AEMEIS'IANS. 97 there conversing with all who came with their inquiries to hear the gospel from him. My first business was to learn the Armenian language, and mv wife and I began the study of it together under the instruction of a young Armenian of Smyrna, who proved an incompetent teacher, and I soon obtained a really efficient instructor. He was a character. He had lived all over the Eastern world, and knew his own lan- guage well, besides some others. He gloried in the title of "Yussef Eifendo," that is, "Joseph my lord." He gave us a ffood start in the language, had a good head on his shoulders, and keen, bright eyes, but his person was very disagreeable, it was the abode of no less than three different kinds of inhabitants. My wife had to be very careful, every time he took his departure, to sweep all around the hard bottom chair on which he sat, as well as the chair itself. After awhile Mr. Dwight sent to me Baron Barkis, that is, Mr. Sarkis, one of the evangelical Armenians, who had begun to multiply around him. This young man was a gentleman and a scholar, and also, we had good reason to believe, a truly enlightened Chris- tian. He lived in my family, and he taught me Arme- nian while I taught him English. We soon began the work of translating, in which we continued to labor together until, after several years, I saw him pass over Jordan, a bright and joyous believer. He died of con- sumption. His physician, of English descent, but born in Turkey, very skillful and eminent in his j^rofession, practised the Oriental habit of cheering up the very sick with false hopes. Contrary to the doctor's wishes and prophecies of evil, I plainly told Sarkis what was his true condition, as the doctor had made it known to me. The next time I met him, his report of the patient was de- cidedly favorable. "Dr. Wood," said I, "you told me it would be fatal to Sarkis if I should plainly inform him that his days were numbered, and now you confess to me yourself that he is better." Dear Armenian brother, the doctor's kindly, but untrue, assurances were almost daily contradicted by his own experiences, and so he was kept painfully moving up and down on a sliding scale of the doctor's own invention. The correct information, which 98 MY LIFE AND TIMES. I communicated very gently, but very plainly, brought his soul into a condition of steadfast, confident, hopeful quietude. He had no fear of death. Many were the pleasant talks we had together about our future home in the Father's house on high. Among the books we had translated together into his o^ai language was the Pil- grim s Progress. How his countenance did light up when I said to him, "Sarkis, you are going to meet old John Bunyan !" So, when I reminded him that he would see Paul and Peter and John, and, above all, that he would meet, face to face, his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the dying believer's eyes plainly expressed the joy that filled his soul. My friend Sarkis Hohanissean, that is, the son of John, was such an Armenian scholar as was quite rare amongst his nation in Constantinople. He became also a thorough English scholar. I could set hardly anything in our own tongue before him of a construction too diffi- cult for him to transfer, in plain and simple words, to his own language. His only fault as a translator for the Armenians was a tendency to the use of a somewhat too scholarly style. The popular language of the Armenians was very much corrupted by being mixed with Turkish words, and these Sarkis, like every other intelligent Armenian, abhorred. They were so many badges of his people's ignorance and servitude to the Moslem. That the vocabulary of the modern Armenian should widen, as well as become j^urified, if education was to make any progress amongst the people, was just such a necessity as had been felt amongst the Greeks, when their modern language, narrowed down to slender limits by centuries of barbaric ignorance, had begun to open and spread itself in the expression of knowledge and thoughts and ideas long buried amongst them. It has not required quite a century to bring back modern Greek, among the educated of that nation, to full equality, perhaps, with the language of their forefathers, when Greece was "in its glory's prime." The same prospect lay before the Armenian people. Their language must have words dug out from the disuse of centuries under whose ruins they were lying buried, because they had need of those words to express the new LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 99 ideas they were beginning to entertain. Sarkis knew this, so did all the few intelligent scholars that remained amongst them. So did the Armenian missionaries, and therefore we were tolerant, of some degree, of that eleva- tion of his style, which the scholarly taste of Sarkis could not help indulging. But, as our work advanced, I found it necessary to ob- tain another translator from Constantinople. His name was Baron Arisdages. But his surname also my memory cannot recall. He, too, was a very fine Armenian scholar, not in all respects, however, equal to Sarkis. He some- what lacked the finished culture of his comrade, though he was very competent. With Baron Arisdages I began the work of translating, first, the ancient Armenian New Testament into the modern language. The Armenians of Asia Minor had never seen the New Testament in a lan- guage they could well understand, except that a few copies had found their way amongst them of a translation that was made in the East Indies under Baptist mission- ary auspices into the modern Armenian dialect, as spoken in that region, differing considerably from the form of dialect used further west. The ancient Armenian New Testament was translated A. D. 410-431. Its reputation, amongst the ancient ver- sions, stands very high, being second only to the old Peshito, or Syriac, version. Its originator seems to have been the Patriarch Isaac, but the chief executor of the work was that eminent scholar, Mesrob, and two assist- ants, whom he sent to Egypt to acquire thorough Greek scholarship. I can testify from my owm knowledge of the version that it has one remarkable feature of similarity to our received Greek text, namely, the order in which every word occurs. I was often led to remark how com- pletely the Greek idiom was followed in its collocation of words. Our translation from this ancient version into fnodern ' Armenian was made by my helpers, Sarkis and Arisdages. As they proceeded, I was reading our Greek text, and occasionally appending a note, where the old Armenian seemed to differ from the Greek. This trans- lation, after many years, was revised, and, no doubt, im- proved, by my eminent colleague, the Rev. Elias Riggs, 7 i^ I 100 MY LIFE AND TIMES. aided bv the best native scholarship. Some twenty-five years ago Dr. Cyrus Hamlin, visiting me at Columbia Seminary, said that there had then been as many as three hundred thousand copies of this modern Armenian New Testament circulated among the Armenians all over the continent of Asia. The Armenian people, like the Jew^s, are a scattered race, from Constantinople to Calcutta. They are to be found all over the greater Asia, including Persia, Tartary and India, in little groups of here a few families, and there a few more. The whole Armenian population cannot be much more than four millions, but, permeating, as they do, the whole Asiatic population, if they can once be evangelized, the gospel leaven will leaven the whole mass. It is this that constitutes the supreme importance of Armenian missions. Upon the death of Sarkis, who had been my helper in conducting a monthly magazine of useful knowledge, largely evangelical, and in translating various other pub- lications, such as the Assembly's Shorter Catechism, and various religious tracts, relating to gospel doctrine, adapted to popular reading, I had been obliged to get a third translator from Constantinople. His name was Muggerdich Tomasean, that is, ''Baptist, the son of Thomas." Arisdages did not live in my family, for some reason which I cannot recall, though he was a stranger in Smyrna, and had no family. But Baptist, the son of Thomas, had a room at my house and ate at my table. He was a good Armenian scholar, and learned the English language speedily, but he had the literary acquirements of neither Sarkis nor Arisdages. His style of writing in Armenian was better suited to the popular apprehen- sion. He was an earnest Christian believer, and had a burning zeal for the religious enlightenment of his peo- ple. With his help we published, amongst other things of the kind, a translation of a simple evangelical cate- chism, which Dr. C. C. Jones had published, and used very profitably amongst the negroes of Liberty county, \ Ga. Baptist Tomasean had no sooner seen this book, and learned to read a few pages of it, than he became very urgent for its preparation to be used amongst his people. We did not translate it literally, but largely, as Dr. Jones LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 101 had written it. ^Ye made it the basis of a popular cate- -^ chism of Scripture doctrine. It was a great success. It/ was exceedingly popular among the Armenian brethren, s- and many copies of it were called for, and, I feel sure, ' were very useful. It proved to be exactly adapted to the • existing condition of religious ignorance amongst even intelligent Armenians. (N. B.) Since I wrote these words I have found, amongst my old letters, one from Dr. Riggs, dated Con- stantinople, September 29, 1860, from which I make an extract, which has a peculiar significance at the present date, ]^ovember 13, 1896, when Turkish and Kurdish atrocities are arresting the eye of the civilized world : "We trust that the reformation, in which we have been permitted to bear a part, is preparing the country gradu- ally for the political changes which imay be in store for it. No civil government can make a people happy without the fear of God, and no misgovernment can make them en- tirely wretched where that blessed element exists. When fifteen hundred or sixteen hundred assemble (as they do) weekly in the Sabbath-schools of both Aintab and Mar ash, to study the Bible and Jones' Catechism, it is impossible that the communities around them should remain sta- tionary. There is essential progress, though it is far from being all that we could desire." This reference to work, in the execution of which, fourteen years previously, I had borne a part, was exceed- ingly cheering to me. Dr. Riggs' statement makes it evident that thirty-six years ago there were in Marash and Aintab, cities far in the interior of Asia Minor, fifteen hundred or sixteen hundred of the population of , each city, gathering together every Lord's day to study the Scriptures and Jones' Catechism, originally prepared ■ 1%^ for the slaves of Liberty county. How much these more than three thousand believers must, with the blessing of, ■ God, have increased during these thirty-six years, and what a great work of preparation must have been thus effected for a patient endurance of the fearful calamities, which the Sultan's misrule and the indifference of European governments, were to bring upon the poor Ar- menians ! u^ 102 MY LIFE A^STD TIMES. The spirit of religious inquiry was rapidly spreading, especially amongst the Constantinople Armenians. Some of the better educated Armenians, who were opposed to the pure truths of the gospel which we were disseminat- ing, began a counter work of publication for their people. They issued attacks upon our teachings in the form of re- ligious f)amphlets, and the brethren in Constantinople prepared replies, sometimes translated in Constantinople, but more frequently by us at Smyrna. The printing was done at our press. Thus I came into the necessary em- ployment of another helper, one Muggerdich Papasean, that is, "Baptist, the son of Papas," a young man of Smyrna, educated in their language by his older brother, Andreas Varjabed, the head professor, as his title signi- fies, of the Armenian College in Smyrna. Andreas Var- jabed was himself a thoroughly educated Armenian scholar. His young brother. Baptist, soon became a truly enlightened Christian believer, and a very earnest co- worker in spreading the truth throughout his nation. Shortly after my return to America from Smyrna, this young man died of consumption. The other Baptist, Muggerdich Tomasean, had previously departed this life, and the decease of both, I do not doubt, was their entrance into a higher sphere of service for their Lord. It had begun to be manifest that, through the blessing of God, there was commencing among the Armenians, though, of course, on a very small scale, a work very V j much like the Reformation of the sixteenth century. ^ There were the same antecedent conditions ; a nation that had been nominally Christian for long ages, but who were perhaps totally ignorant of gospel truth ; they had no legible Scriptures — they were generally as incapable of reading the word of God in their own ancient language as they were of reading the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures ; the Christianity they knew was a religion of mere cere- monies ; it was, in fact, a religion of idolatry, for, while eschewing the worship of graven images, they l)owed do\vn and worshipped before pictured likenesses ; it was in simple truth Mariolatry, for their trust was in the Virgin, and Christ was altogether hidden behind his mother; the Armenian priesthood closely resembled that LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 103 of the Koman Church when Luther arose; and, finally, there had come to prevail the same spirit of religious in- quiry, and of dissatisfaction with their church. This was especially true at Constantinople, but it seemed to prevail, in some degree, very widely. I should have added that the Armenian patriarch, bishops and priests had begun to manifest the same persecuting spirit which insjiired the Romish clergy three centuries ago. Accord- ingly, it was felt to be desirable that the Armenian priest- hood, and also the Armenian inquirers, should be made acquainted with the history of the Lutheran Reformation. The man whom I named, in a previous page, as head of the Armenian Academy, or College, at Smyrna, that is, Professor Andrew Papasean, was a good French scholar, and I also was familiar with that language. Accord- '^ ingly, we began the translation of D'Aubigne's History of c the Reformation. I took a copy of the edition put forth at Paris and Geneva in 1838, and carefully abridged it ^ in such a manner as to shorten much the history without much injury to its value. Professor Andrew translated the abridgment into Armenian, and then, together, we carefully went over the Armenian and French, consider- ing both the abridging and the translating work. It con- stituted two respectable volumes in the modern Armenian language. This was almost the last work of my twelve years of labor among this peoj^le, for shortly after this was finished, I had to return home to the United States. Dr. Hamlin, when visiting me at Columbia Seminary, as mentioned before, said that the work had proved accepta- ble and useful. My chief business, as missionary to the Armenians, being the management of the press in modern Armenian, as has already been made to appear, I was consequently very much confined to my desk, revising the work of my translators, and reading proof sheets, as they came from the printing office. Accordingly, I had little time to visit amongst the Armenians of Smyrna. They were indeed but a few thousands, and whenever any man of their nation ventured to visit me, he was immediately marked. Nevertheless, as soon as I was able to speak the language fluently, I always attempted a Sunday service in Ar- 104 MY LIFE AND TIMES. menian. Usuallv I had one or two Armenians, besides mj three or four translators, to hear me expound the Scriptures. Occasionally I would have several strangers. Quite seldom did my little congregation amount to eight or ten, but one Sunday I actually had a large congrega- tion which numbered sixteen ! We always had preaching in English at the Dutch Chapel, where a considerable congregation of the English, French Protestant, and Dutch colony would assemble. The summer time I usually moved my family out of the city four miles to the little Turkish village of Boujah, where a number of Europeans and Americans congre- gated, and to them I constantly preached on the Lord's day, and also of a Wednesdav evening. Some summers we went to Bournabat, which was seven miles from the city near the gulf shore. Five miles of the seven we had to be rowed in a little Greek caique; the other two we rode on donkeys. From Boujah I would ride in to my daily work on horseback, or perhaps on the back of a don- key. It was on donkeys that our ladies usually rode with the owner of the animal running by her side with one hand on the bridle, and the other hand behind the cum- brous big Turkish saddle, holding a sharp goad, with several rings attached to the goad. Sometimes he would stimulate the donkey with the goad, though frequently it was enough just to jingle his rings. Those patient little beasts of burden were very quick in their motions, and would whirl round very suddenly, thus unseating even a male rider. The native women always rode astride ; but our ladies, having only the Turkish saddle to sit on, found it necessary to have the driver at their side helping them to keep on. We had arrived in Smyrna early in October, 1834. On the first day of the following June our first child was born. We named him after my father. He died on the 15th day of April, 1837. Our second son was born on the 2d of June, 1836, and we named him after two of my brothers. He died on the 4th of June, 1837. Thus in seven weeks both were taken, and we were left childless. These dispensations we felt to be very severe, but they did certainly afterwards yield to us the peaceable fruits LIFE AMOI^G THE ARMENIANS. 105 of righteousness. As to myself, religion became a new experience to me, awakening within me far deeper and tenderer emotions than it ever before produced. As at Princeton Seminary, I received, as it were, a new con- version, so was it here and now. When my first-born died I was overwhelmed with grief, but my aged colleague, the Rev. Daniel Temple, perceiving my distress, told me I should probably live to consider this the greatest bless- ing of my life. His words were fulfilled. AVhen the second boy died we were totally unprepared for it. I was sitting in the basement room of our little Turkish cottage at Boujah, on Saturday, June 3d, writing a ser- mon on the text "God is Love," which I was to preach next day to the little English and American congregation. I little thought that in the "Love of God" we were about to experience another painful bereavement. But, in his good and wise providence, it was so ordered. At mid- night our only remaining child was taken from us. . . . I added a little to my sermon, and on Sunday morning I was enabled to preach it. There was no Protestant church building then at Boujah, but a suitable lot had been purchased, and a chapel was about to be erected. In that lot we buried our infants in one grave alongside of the one where we had shortly before assisted in depositing the remains of the wife of the Rev. Eli Smith, missionary to Beirut. No Christian church building can be built in Turkey without a special permit from the Sultan at Con- stantinople. Every effort to obtain this permission failed in this case. After a delay of some months, the Protes- tants purchased a dwelling house that had lately been erected, which, with some inside alterations, would con- stitute a very commodious chapel. To this the Turks would make no objection. That lot being enclosed, and graves being dug there for our purposes, Mr. Smith and I repaired at midnight, took up our dead, and they were buried in their new resting-places. Subsequently, I had a tombstone put over my children, with our names and theirs inscribed, and also their ages, and then this epitaph — -. " Asleep in Jesus ! ) To wake with all that glorious band, \» The martyrs of this solemn land." A^ 106 MY LIFE AND TIMES. I took this couplet of lines from a very sweet poem which Miss Hamilton, of Scotland, who had become greatly attached to our little James during his sickness, had written respecting him. It was published in Scot- land with her poems, and a beautiful copy of them sent to me, but Tecumseh Sherman burnt it, with the rest of my library in Columbia. Our iirst-born son, James, was baptized by Rev. Daniel Temple, on the afternoon of a T^ord's day in the Dutch Chapel at Smyrna, 1835, and his brother, Robert William, was baptized by the Rev. Josiah Brewer on Friday even- ing, 1st of July, 1836. Mrs. Eli Smith, of whom I spoke above, had spent the last days of her suffering life with us in our little Turkish cottage. She was a Miss Landman, of Connecticut, a highly gifted lady; had passed some years of her life in Beirut, Syria; was fa- tally ill with consumption, and, with her husband, was on her way home to die there ; on the way from Beirut to Smyrna they were cast away, the vessel was wrecked, and there being no way of departure from the desert spot where the shipwreck occurred, Mrs. Smith had to lie ex- posed on the beach more than one day and night. Reach- ing Smyrna at last, she was brought from the city to us at Boujah, where she died, in the same little chamber where our James had passed away, and her husband being called out at the moment for some reason, it was my privilege to close her eyes in death. This is no unfair sample of missionary life. There were two somewhat remarkable features in the death of this eminent missionary woman. After con- sciousness had ceased a good while, her dying moans, all at once, gave way to what seemed to be the march of a h^inn tune in two lines, though, of course, there were no articulate words. We looked at one another, and whis- pered, "She is singing." "Yes," said her weeping hus- band, "she hears the heavenly choirs, and is trying to sing in unison with what she hears." This certainly was quite impressive. Then it was a somewhat remarkable assem- bly who witnessed this scene. Besides the Americans present, there were several Armenians, one or two Greeks, one English lady, and one man of the Druses of !Mt. LIFE AMONG THE AKMENIANS. 107 Lebanon — a mongrel Mohammedan and heathen people. He had come as a servant with Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Our third child, named Sarah Anne, after my mother and my wife's sister, was born at Smyrna, Sej)tember 4, 1837, and was baptized by the Rev. Eli Smith. The next summer, my father and mother, with my sisters, Susan and Jane Anne, and my brother William, were all in Eng- land, and in July we started with our babe, ten months old, and Yanoula, that is, Joanna, a Greek girl, her nurse, to go, at my father's expense, and meet them there. I had taken the precaution weeks beforehand to ride out seven miles from Smyrna to Sevtheekeoy, a little Greek village, to get the consent of Yanoula' s mother for her to go with us. She had been the nurse of our first two boys, as well as little Sarah Anne. With one exception she was the only Greek we had personally known who never would tell a lie. We were greatly attached to her, of course, and so she was to us. Her old mother cheerfully consented. Nevertheless, on the day of our embarkation, as a measure of needful prudence, I took my family as early as possible on board the French steamer on which we were to sail. Leaving them there, I went on shore to wind up some little matters of business, and amongst them to see the American Consul, Mr. David Offley, and get my pass- ports. I found quite a tumult in the city. The Greek priest at Sevtheekeoy had heard that we were taking Ya- noula to England. He inferred that she was to be made an English, or an American, or a Protestant girl, these three terms being synonymous with him. He raised a storm about the old woman's ears, brought her into Smyrna to take the girl away from us. Reaching the city, he stirred up the Smyrna priesthood, and they stirred up quite a crowd of their people, so there was a great commotion. Even the American Consul, partly of Greek blood himself, and no friend to us missionaries, took part in the fuss, and remonstrated with me against my transporting this Greek girl to America. I assured the gentleman that I was not going to America, and that the girl should be brought back safely in three or four months. So then I took a caique, and went on board the ship. I found that Yanoula's mother, and perhaps her 108 MY LIFE AjS^D TIMES. priest, but certainly a number of her excited people, had gone out to the French vessel to bring the girl back. They wanted to go on board for her, but only the mother was permitted to ascend. Then followed a scene. The old mother interviewed her daughter, commanding, persuad- ing, beseeching her to go back with her. To all this Ya- noula was deaf. Finally, the old mother solemnly pro- nounced a curse on her daughter, as she took her depar- ture. Yanoula stood firm to the end, all that she said throughout the whole affair was, ''You told the chelehi and the kokona/' that is, the master and the mistress, "that I might go with them, and now here at the last I am not going to disappoint them." Such is the power which the priests wield over the ignorant people. Yanoula knew very well that her mother's curse was not denounced sincerely — she only spoke it from fear of the priest. Poor little Sarah Anne had noj; altogether recovered from her attack of the measles. She became quite sick on the voyage. At Hiat period all passengers from the Le- vant desiring to enter Europe must perform a quarantine of three weeks at the island of Malta. Accordingly, we were shut up in one of the old stone forts built by the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, viz., the Castle of St. Angelo. It was a splendid fortress, kept in the very best order, but without any armament. We had delightful apartments all built of solid masonry. We were fur- nished with whatever we desired from a restaurant kept outside of the fort, sat in our cool, shady room during the heat of every day, and walked at our pleasure on the ramparts at eventide. Our sole companions were a young English gentleman, named Hardy, and his friend, whose name I forget. Our imprisonment was not very disagree- able, except for the sickness of our little girl, who seemed, day by day, to grow gradually more fec])lo. Having obtained what they call pratique, that is, our quarantine being over, and being released from the Castle St. Angelo, we proceeded on our way to Marseilles. The baby did not improve ; nevertheless, when we reached France, we judged it best to proceed. We got as far as Avignon, in a French diligence. There I was able to LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 109 find a carriage that had come from Paris, and was to be sent back. I engaged it at once, and we then set out "travelling post," that is to say, we took advantage of the French system of Pastes, obtaining fresh relays of horses continually. In this way we travelled night and day, and made- rapid progress. Passing a rope from one corner of the carriage above our heads, to the opposite corner diagonally and back again, and putting a couple of sticks, a foot and a half long between the ropes, and then passing a folded sheet round the ropes thus separ- ated, we constructed a pretty comfortable hammock for the sick baby, on which she lay quietly just as long as the carriage moved on. At Lyons, both the child and her mother being very sick, we Avere delayed two or three days at the Hotel Provencial. I called in a French physi- cian, by name Pernolet. He was a Roman Catholic. Our case as Americans, and as missionaries coming from Smyrna, the mother and the babe both sick, seemed to interest him very much. I managed to converse with him in my broken French, and I was greatly moved by all his kindness to us. Moving on at length from Lyons, we were placed, first, in a small steamer crowded with pas- sengers, which conveyed us to a larger one, on board of which we then em])arked. The crowd, as soon as they embarked, rushed for the breakfast table, and filled it. We, moving slower, had to wait till they had finished. Then they turned to see us sitting there with our sick babe on its mother's laj). Evidently their commiseration was excited. It was not long before a French priest ap- proached me, and, supposing the child to be dying, asked me if I would like him to baptize it. I replied that I was a Protestant minister myself, and the child had been bap- tized. He bowed politely and retired. I felt quite sad, and was sitting behind my wife, with my hand covering my eyes, when, after a short interval, he returned, carry- ing oil, or perhaps water, in a little cup behind his back, and then unperceived by me, as he passed by the mother and the child, he just made the sign of the cross on its forehead, and moved quickly off. My poor wife was very indignant, but I told her he meant kindly, believing, as his church teaches, that unbaptized children are all lost 110 MY LIFE AND TIMES. forever, that our babe was not truly baptized, and that bv this act of his, this stolen baptism, he had actually saved the baby's soul ! After awhile I made the acquaintance of a gentleman and his wife who spoke English. They proved to be Protestant travelling missionaries employed by their brethren to go about amongst the Roman Catholic people, giving them instruction in the true faith. We had a good deal of conversation, and I told him about the stolen bap- tism. Subsequently, the zealous priest got this gentleman to introduce him to me, and after a few common-place words, he politely requested my name and address, saying it would be a pleasant souvenir to him. Of course, I gave it to him, and he pencilled it on his little memorandum book. I have no doubt that our little Sarah Anne, the child of a Protestant minister, was in due time reported to the proper authorities as having been properly baptized by him, amongst all the other little children whose salva- tion he had thus been the means of securing. We quit the steamer in the afternoon at Chalons, and pursued our sorrowful journey towards Paris. We passed through Autun, and when we drove into the hotel yard at Auxerre, I was greatly astonished and much de- lighted to meet there my venerable father. Hearing that we were on the road with a sick child, a perfect stranger in France, and knowing nothing of the language, he had still, in his fatherly kindness, ventured to set out to meet us far in the interior. At the very commencement of his lonely journey, he had happened to sit alongside of an old Frenchman, and the kind old lady his wife. They per- ceived he was a stranger, and took charge of him. There were frequent changes to be made in the mode of the journey, and at every one of these his conductors, with the politeness characteristic of the French, would see to it that he got a good place. The old lady, especially, would beckon to him with her hand, saying something to him in French, and he, following her, would say, "Oui, oui," which was all the French he knew, and then all three of them would have a laugh together. Our chartered carriage was in need of some slight re- pairs at Auxerre, and the workman made rather an ex- LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIAISTS. Ill tortionate charge. Xot an adept in speaking French my- self, I was hardly able to deal with him in his language. I had learned in Turkey at what a disadvantage this al- ways puts a disputant. Whenever a Turkish porter, who had carried a load for me on his pack, undertook to charge me more than was due, I always began to use the English language on him, and he was generally quite discomfited at once, and would give up the argument, and depart with a just payment in his hand. I was inwardly amused when I saw my father try this plan with the French black- smith. Shaking his doubled-up fist at the man, the old gentleman, considerably roused by his injustice, broke out thus, "If ever I catch you in my country, I will do you this same way." Nevertheless, he paid the bill, and we departed. Reaching Paris, he took us to the Hotel Meurice in the Rue de Rivoli. From Paris we went to Havre, and took steam to England, and then by rail to Birmingham. There again, after some weeks, we were left childless, September 9, 1838. Our little one, enclosed in a coffin filled with gypsum, and then placed in another box, was sent across the Atlantic, and buried in my father's family plat in the Second church grave-yard, Charleston. We all went down to Liverpool, and were lodged with our friends, John Bones and lady, at the Star and Garter Hotel. My brother James, having just ar- rived from his travels in Egypt, my father took him and me over to his native country. We went to Dublin, and then Belfast, went through the County Antrim, visited Dunean, where my grandfather lived and was buried, also Moneynick and Randallstown, and thence to the Giants' Causeway, and after that, back again to Tiver- pool. When the time came for my brother William to leave the party and return home, we called a cab, after the clock had struck seven in the morning, and putting his trunk into it, my brother James and I set off with the cab for the quay, my father putting a shilling into my hand to pay the cabman. He, with my brother William, were to walk down together, having to call somewhere on the way. xVrrived at Scotland yard and the dock, we would have sent William's trunk on board, but the cabman would not 112 MY LIFE AISTD TIMES. give it up, demanding an extra shilling, on the ground that he was called before seven. I quietly said, "Wait till the gentleman who engaged you comes down, and then we'll settle it." There Avas quite a crowd of spectators. When the others got do^vn, I told my father what the cabman said, and that he wouldn't give up the trunk. The Irish blood in the old man rose at once, starting forward through the crowd, he said, "Where is the fellow ?" My brother James saw the storm arising, and felt it was time for him to interfere. With his strong, muscular arms, he laid hold on poor, little Paddy, and sent him flying some ten feet away from the trunk. The hot Irish blood cooled off the instant James laid hold, and father cried out, "James, let the man alone." I stepped out of the crowd, and beckoned to a policeman up at the office, who came down at once, and, hearing what we said, took the cabman under arrest to the office, where he said we could find him when ready. William and his trunk went on board, and the ship departed. The policeman named an hour when a magistrate would be present, and we could have satisfac- tion for the cabman's misconduct. My father's Irish heart had softened as soon as he saw the big, burly Eng- lish policeman leading off his little countryman a pris- oner, and so no sooner had the policeman made his state- ment than the Irish hand found its way to a pocket, and, slipping several shillings into Paddy's hand, he told the policeman he would enter no complaint, and the cabman went away rejoicing. The day approached when the Charleston party were to set sail. It had been settled that my wife's state of health required that she should accompany them. I felt it was necessary that I should return to my work in Smyrna. My father had taken a great fancy to our Greek nurse, and urged Yanoula to go with her mistress to Charleston. Probably she would have been willing, but I had said that she would return from England. It was a sorrowful parting for my wife and me. They sailed away, and I set out alone for my Eastern home. ISTo, my brother James accompanied me as far as Paris, and from thence I had the charge of good, faithful Yanoula, all the way from Paris to Marseilles in a diligence, and thence LIFE AMO^STG THE ARMENIANS. 113 on a ten days' voyage by French steamer to Smyrna. They had promised me at the diligence office that we had plenty of time to catch the next steamer, but it was with no little consternation, that, on reaching the highlands above Marseilles, I could see the French steamer setting out on her voyage. I was condemned to a ten days' so- journ in a French hotel at Marseilles, with this young woman on my hands. I found that she needed my pro- tection constantly. I had to interfere on her behalf in the hotel. On the steamer, likewise, the same thing oc- curred, she being in the second cabin, and I in the first. During my ten days' stay at the hotel, I had to provide her a room next to my own, and also to have my food fur- nished three times a day in my own room, with one table set for myself and another for her. When she got home at Sevtheekeoy, she had a hard time ; she was never to be allowed to hire to an American or English family again. I never saw her but once more, but she carried with her in her separation from her mistress and me all the instruc- tions my wife had given her, and also the modern Greek Testament she had taught her to read. After some fifteen months, the separation becoming no longer tolerable, we met again in Liverpool in January or February, 1840, my wife bringing with her Miss Maria Shrewsbury, and our third little son, about one year old. They sailed direct from Charleston. John B. Adger, Jr., was born in Charleston February 7, 1839, and was baptized at Boujah by the Rev. Elias Riggs June 18, 1840. To meet them I had taken the French steamer at Smyrna, passed another quarantine alone in the Castle of St. Angelo, reading McCrie's Life of John Knox and other histories of the Reformation. Again landing at Marseilles, I travelled post, in company with three young Scotchmen returning home from India on furlough, and then from Havre to Liverpool. Stopping awhile in London, my family and I took an English steamer back to Smyrna. Arriving there in April we went to Boujah for the summer. I rode in every day, and worked with my translators till evening. One day in August, 1840, my donkey fell with me, and fell on 114 MY LIFE AND TIMES. me, hurting my right knee. My physician insisted on as much rest for the knee as was possible, and I had to blister it, first on one side and then on the other, for the eight folloAving months, and did not go at all to Smyrna, but my manuscripts and proof sheets were sent to me daily at Boujah. In my house I used a crutch ; when I had occa- sion to go about Boujah I rode on a donkey. One Wed- nesday evening after preaching as usual to English and American residents there, I rode up to the house of a dying English friend, Mr. Samuel Barker, for one of my accustomed visits to him. His brother, Mr. Benjamin Barker, was agent of the British and Foreign Bible So- ciety, and kept a depot in the city, of their books. The Barker family consisted of several sisters, and one more brother, Mr. Henry Barker. They were of English de- scent, but their forefathers were old residents of Smyrna. Mrs. Samuel Barker was of the French Protestant family of La Fontaines. She was an eminent Christian woman, full of faith, and devoted to prayer for her sick husband. He had been ill for months of consumption. She had beg- ged me to break to him gently, but very plainly, what was his true condition, for, like most consumptives, he was by no means aware of it. I had complied with her request, and did, gently, but very plainly, make him understand that he was a dying man. He received my communica- tions very kindly, but evidently did not believe what I said. He then turned the tables on me, and being some twenty years my senior, began to give me, very kindly, but very decidedly, his opinion as to the great impro- priety of a young minister speaking so plainly to a sick man about his o^\^l death. My visit on that occasion did not seem to have made the desired impression on his mind, but his faithful Christian wife was at that very time, and always wrestling with God in prayers for her husband, not so much that he would give him life, as that he would give him "length of days forevermore." I visited him repeatedly. He was a man of excellent moral character, universally respected in Smyrna, but he was utterly ignorant of the gospel, although baptized in the English Church, and a regular attendant at its services in the chapel of the British Consulate at Smyrna. He LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 115 had heard sermons there by good chaplains, and had j)iously joined in repeating the responses through all the beautiful prayers of the English Church, ever since he was a boy, but he had never learned that he was a sinner, who could be saved only through grace. When I talked with him of our transgressions, which could only be washed away by the blood of Jesus, he heard me as one speaking to him in an unknown tongue. When I talked to him of being born again, he received it just like Nico- demus, with, ''How can these things be ?" The idea being presented to him that we could not be saved of ourselves, but only through another, and that none of our good deeds or good words could be accepted by God except through the Mediator, he protested that he had never heard such incredible things as I was stating. When I said to him, "Why, Mr. Barker, don't you close every prayer with the words, 'For Jesus Christ's sake ?' or with others just like these ?" he would answer, "Oh ! yes, I know that, but that is only a form of words that we are taught to use." !N"otwithstanding all this dense ignorance, I would remem- ber how earnestly his wife was pleading for him, and I could not but hope and believe that the Spirit of God was applying the truth to his heart. At the Wednesday evening lecture mentioned above, I had expounded Colossians, first chapter, from twelfth verse to twenty-second inclusive. When 1 got to j\lr. Barker's sick room, I took the same passage of Scripture, reading and explaining it to him. Two or three of his sisters stood at his bedside, no one of them probably knowing any more of the gospel than he did. His wife was not present. I think I knew well where she was, and what she was doing at the time. I called Mr. Barker's attention to the necessity of our being made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light, and of our being deliv- ered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son ; and how Jesus had made peace for us by the blood of his cross, and how those who were alienated from him by wicked works, and enemies in their mind to him, he does now reconcile in the body of his flesh through death in order to present them holy and unblameable and unreprovable in the very sight of 116 MY LIFE AKD TIMES. God. When I had explained these things, I heard a voice from the dying man's pillow, crying out, ''Mr. Adger, is that what you say I must believe in order to be saved r' I replied, "Yes, Mr. Barker, that is it," and I then re- peated several other passages in quick succession where the same precious, saving truth is set forth. "Well, then," said Mr. Barker, "if that is what I must believe, I do be- lieve it." His wife's prayers had been answered. It was as if I had thrown a rope to a drowning man, and he had seized it, and I had seen him seize it, and been rescued. Mr. Barker lived about three weeks. Hitherto he had been naturally a man of very few words. His tongue had now been loosed ; his native taciturnity was all gone. I may say, literally, that he spent all his remaining life, henceforth, telling the good old story of the gospel to all that came about him. Alas ! they certainly did not all understand what he said, else one of his sisters had never said what was reported to me, viz., "When I am dying I want some one to come and tell me what Mr. Adger told my brother, for it made him die so happily." January 1, 1841, our second daughter and fifth child was born at Boujah, and was named after her mother, Elizabeth Keith. She was baptized at Boujah by Rev. Henry Van Lennep. In April, 1841, our translation of the jSTew Testament, from the ancient version into the modern Armenian lan- guage, having been completed at Smyrna, I took it with me to Constantinople, that I might carefully revise it, with the aid of some of the best native Armenian talent that I could command there. The annual meeting of our mission, when all the missionaries assembled at the cap- ital, was to be held the following month. Expecting to be detained there the whole summer with my revision. my family accompanied me to the annual meeting. I was still using my crutch Avhen I walked, and my knee was still feeling, to some degree, the effects of my fall. I walked up to see Dr. Dawson, an eminent English surgeon and physician-i, sent by the British government to show the Sultan how to establish a good hospital. He advised me to lay aside my crutch, and, leaving it in the entry at his boarding house, I walked immediately perhaps a mile, LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 117 and had no more trouble with my knee. The annual meeting was held very soon after that. Our babe took the varioloid from the children of Mr. Johnson, of ISTorth Carolina, missionary at Trebizond. Mr. Johnson was a Presbyterian, a godly man, and very useful missionary, both by his preaching to the Armenians, and by some doc- trinal tracts for them which we published at Smyrna. From little Lizzie her mother took the varioloid, and I was her sole nurse. Her case was a serious one, though still only varioloid, and she was very much reduced. Mr. Dwnght, with whom we were lodging, suggested that, on account of the extreme heat of the weather, and my wife's slow recovery, we should take a little Turkish koolah — that is, a miserable cottage, with a little miserable garden attached, on one of the hills outside the city — seven miles from his house, and remove both our families there. He would come in every day to his work at his room in the khan previously mentioned. I would go on with my Kew Testament revision, the Armenian reviser joining me daily in the garden. In that little Turkish garden, seated on a rug on the ground, under a very insufhcient little shade tree, he and I went on with our work. My wife im- proved daily quite fast, drinking every day a glass of porter, and breathing the fresh air of the hills. After being there about a week, I saw red spots on the back of each of my hands, which I attributed to the heat of the sun and insulficient shade. This was on Saturday. On Sunday Mr. Dwight and I walked in to his Armenian ser- vice held at his house. I preached in Armenian to his Armenian congregation of about one hundred persons. We dined at Mr. Goodell's house, which was nearby. About an hour after dinner, I began to feel very faint ; it was time to start for the koolah, and I, not being able to walk, we went to one of those numerous places in the city where men stand with horses ready saddled for hire. We mounted, but every mile my illness increased ; still I had no suspicion of what was to happen. The next day, Mon- day, I lay all day on a bench in the little garden, and an old Armenian friend named Oscan, whom we greatly valued, came and sat by me for several hours. Evening came at last, and brought increased miseiw to me ; still I 118 MY LIFE AND TIMES. suspected nothing, though suffering all over unspeakably. Our bed was on the floor under a window. With the early- dawn I saw what the matter was, my hand was covered with pustules. As soon as possible we procured a Turk- ish ox-carriage, and, with my little family, I was slowly carried back to Mr. Dwight's house. Next day (Wed- nesday) delirium came on, and continued till the second Sunday morning, when I was awakened by the cries of the hucksters passing along the streets under my windows with their vegetables. I had small-pox of the confluent kind, over my whole body ; one pustule covered the whole back of each hand. I had become a black man. My head and neck were dreadfully swollen, and my nostrils stop- ped up, Maria Shrewsbury, with my two children, and their nurse, were conflned to the third story of Mr. Dwight's house, and my wife was my nurse. One Greek friend, by name "Panayotes," so-called in honor of the Virgin Mary, one of whose idolatrous titles is "Panagia," which means the All Holy, a most excellent Christian brother, who had had the small-pox himself, assisted my wife in the care of me. This good man, being an excellent Turkish scholar, was aiding Mr. Goodell in translating the Bible into Armeno-Turkish — that is, into the Turkish language, Avritten with Armenian letters, for the use of Armenian readers, who are all familiar with that lan- guage. The good and dear Panayotes was one of the only two Greeks whom I ever learned to know intimately that would not tell a lie, the other one being our baby's nurse, the Greek girl Yanoula, spoken of before. Mr. Dwight's servant man, an Armenian, by name Hatchadoor (which means "Devoted to the Cross") also had had the small- pox himself, waited on my wife during our hour of trial. There was also a young Scotchman, not very long resident in Constantinople, a clerk in some English house of busi- ness. He had become a Christian under the influence of the missionaries, and was devoted to them. He came, and was with us for a day or two when we first got back from the koolah, and in the zeal of his first Christian love, he was willing to risk his life in waiting on me through my illness. Of course, however, this had to be early for- bidden. Our physician was Dr. Stamatiades, a Greek LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 119 who had studied in America, and a kind, competent and faithful young man. But he was desirous of bleeding me. Dr. Dawson, the English physician before named, had also been requested to come and see me. He did so, but strongly condemned the idea of bleeding. He said it would be fatal to me. After my delirium passed away I began to recover. I was forty days confined to my room. In my inexperience, full of ardor in the work committed to me, I began with my manuscripts before I was able to get out, thus inflicting serious and lasting injury to my already impaired sight. When sufficiently recovered, we went over, under the care of the Rev. Henry Holmes, a missionary brother, to Broosa, one of the chief cities of the interior, for a visit to the missionaries there. We returned to Smyrna about October, 1841. I was able to attend in some measure to my work, but was an invalid for eighteen months, every day sensibly gaining a little, and so learn- ing by experience how many degrees there are between extreme illness and perfect health. The winter of 1842 my dear friend and fellow-missionary, the Rev. Simeon Howard Calhoun, one of l^ature's noblemen, and a ripe and experienced Christian man, boarded in my family in the city. He was agent of the American Bible Society in the Levant ; afterwards became a missionary of the American Board in Syria, but passed over Jordan many years ago. I look forward to a meeting with many men of God whom I have known and loved in this world, but few they are whom I am more desirous of meeting again than Simeon Howard Calhoun. That same winter we entertained, as a guest at our house for several months, a most excellent young minister of the Church of England, to whom both my wife and I became greatly attached. He was a son of the well-known Ca?sar Malan, an eminent man of God at Geneva, Switzerland. I suppose the ex- treme views on some points of doctrine of his venerable father had a good deal to do in driving the young man into the English Church. He was in bad health, and was spending the winter in our mild climate for that reason. He had a wonderful aptitude for learning languages, and I cannot recall how many various tongues of men he had become considerably acquainted with. He took hold of 120 MY LIFE AND TIMES. the modern Armenian with great avidity, and before he left us became quite an adept in that hinguage. He must have continued his studies in Armenian after his return to Enghmd, because in 1868 he published the Life and Times of St. Gregory the Illuminator, translated from the Armenian. He was very high Church in his notions ; and it was instructive as well as amusing to be present at the tilts, usually at our dinner table, between young Malan, the accomplished scholar and perfect Chris- tian gentleman, and my earnest and zealous, but no less accomplished and competent Puritan friend and brother, Calhoun. These things belong to over fifty years ago. Malan and Calhoun, differing so much here, yet loving and admiring one another so much in this world, I doubt not, are often walking together the golden streets of the new Jerusalem, where I hope, ere very long, to walk with them. Being myself so much of an invalid, and our baby, Elizabeth Keith, being very sick that summer, I moved, with my family, to Bournabat about March, 1842, my proof sheets being daily brought out to me. We chose to go to Bournabat instead of Boujah, for variety, and be- cause it was pleasant sometimes to get within two miles of it by being rowed in a boat. The baby grew very much worse as the summer came on. One day, lying on her mother's lap, while I anxiously looked at the child, we thought we saw her breathe her very last, but she breathed once more, and I said, ''Let us instantly get donkeys, ride to the landing with her, take a caique, and go across the gulf to Mr. Cohen's koolah, on the hills outside of Smyrna." From the time that we started the child im- proved, and on those hills she almost entirely recovered. I must tell a little about my friend Cohen. He was what is called "a converted Jew," and, as such, had been at- tached to the Jewish mission work in Smyrna, under the Rev. Mr. Bewis. AVhether he was really a converted man or not, he had a great many admirable qualities of char- acter, and we were devoted friends. His wife, when a very little child, escaped somehow the massacre of her parents in tlie Island of Scio, when they, with almost all the other Greeks of that beautiful island, were put to LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 121 death by the Turks. This child was taken to Smyrna and sold as a little Greek slave to some benevolent peo- ple ; was sent to Ireland, and there educated in the Eng- lish Church, and after returning to Smyrna was married to John Cohen. They were an estimable couple, and during my fifteen months' solitude in Smyrna, when my wife was in America, I had got them to come and live at my house for a considerable part of the time when I boarded with them. Having intimated a doubt as to Mr. Cohen's being really a converted Jew, I ought to add that he certainly did suffer a great deal of persecution from his own people on account of his Christian profession. There were twelve young Jews, of whom he was one, that had been baptized by clergymen of the Church of England, by name Leeves, if my memory serves me, a short time before I landed first in Smyrna. They were confined in a Turk- ish prison (or perhaps it was a Jewish prison) called the Bagnio, and I rather think they had to submit to the bas- tinado, that is, to being beaten on the soles of the feet, a most cruel punishment, and afterwards they were ban- ished to Kaisarieh, the ancient Cffisarea, in the centre of Asia Minor, about forty days' journey from Constanti- nople. Add to this that, of course, they were renounced forever by their parents. All these sufferings they hero- ically endured for the name of Christ. I knew John Cohen intimately, and have often heard him talk of this history. I knew one more of the tAvelve, named John Baptist, very slightly, and I recollect nothing particular about his career. All the others, as I was well informed, subsequently made it manifest, by their lives and conduct, that they had not been converted to Christ. One of them, at least, became a Turk, and the rest lived disgracefully. And so we see it is no positive proof, as is commonly sup- posed, that a man is a real believer because he suffers much for his Christian profession. He may afterwards be led to forswear it. He may seem to begin in the spirit, but he may finish, as the Apostle expresses it, in the flesh, "having suffered so many things in vain." As I have spoken of John Cohen, I must not omit all mention of my other friends, the Rev. Mr. Lewis and his 122 MY LIFE AND TIMES. lady. They were Irish folks from the city of Cork, be- longing to the Church of England. I was very intimate with Mr. Lewis, as was my wife with Mrs. Lewis, a very admirable woman. He came to the East as a missionary to the Jews, but was, I think, unsuccessful, and subse- quently became British chaplain at Smyrna. Somehow he did not get along very well with my New England mis- sionary colleagues, but he was a great friend of mine. We spent a month or more with the Cohens at their koolah. Erequently at night he was visited by Turkish soldiers, who were maintaining some kind of guard not very far oif, and he would get them to perforin some of their Turkish military dances. We returned in June to Bournabat, and we remained there during the mild and pleasant winter. Our third daughter, named Anna Maria, after her mother's two sisters, was born there, March 22, 1843. She was baptized by my friend, the Rev. Simeon Lloward Calhoun. My health greatly im- proved at Bournabat, and about the month of October we returned to the city. The demand for our books was in- creasing very greatly, and I was encouraged to push my work of translation and publication to my utmost ability. All the more because of the long period of my feeble health. I was then almost thirty-three years old. But, as 1 look back fifty-three years, I see, and am amazed at my want of prudence. But we had a great object set be- fore us. It was becoming more and more evident, as I have before stated, tliat, amongst the Armenian people, there was beginning a reformation, in very many respects just like the great Reformation of the sixteenth century. It was on a small scale, of course, but the people in both cases were just alike as to their spiritual condition ; they were both nominally Christian, but the Bible did not exist for either of them in a language which they under- stood. In both cases it had to be translated and pub- lished. In both cases a few earnest souls had been awakened. In both cases the light began to spread, the number of inquirers to increase, and more and more we were called on for the means of still further instruction and advancement. In both cases the ecclesiastical power sought to put down inquiry by persecution, and in both cases the effect of this was to rouse more of the people to LIFE AMONG THE AKMENIANS. 123 seek after the truth. Not one man amongst the mission- aries but felt a mighty impulse to do his best in these exciting circumstances. For myself, I was moved fre- quently to continue my work to a late hour at night. I remember on one occasion, with poultice on my right eye on account of a sty that was troubling me, I found my- self at eleven o'clock at night still working with the other eye, over Armenian manuscripts, though they are spe- cially trying to the sight. During the ensuing winter we had a visit from the Rev. Dr. Anderson, Secretary of the American Board, who was accompanied by the Rev. Dr. Hawes, an eminent jSTew England pastor. They came on an official visitation to all the missionaries of the Board in Asia Minor and Syria. Having finished their inspection of things in Asia Minor, they were ready in March, 1844, to set sail for Beirut. While sojourning at my house. Dr. Anderson had observed that I was overtasking my lately recovered strength. He said to me, "You must go with us to Jeru- salem." He said to my colleagues, "If Mr. Adger does not break off again for awhile, he will be in America in about twelve months." My wife accompanied me, and we took little Anna Maria and her nurse. We all went by steam to Beirut. Thence we were to travel on horseback to the Holy City. Our little one and her faithful nurse we committed to the care of our kind friend, Mrs. W. M. Thompson. Her husband was the man, my class-mate at Princeton, who first interested my heart in the foreign missionary enterprise. I bought a nice pony horse and side-saddle for my wife, and a tall grey steed for myself. A Miss Watkins, from Hartford, Conn., joined our party, and so the deputation, with Mr. Calhoun and the Rev. Eli Smith and Mr. de Forest and his wife, made our cav- alcade, in number, nine persons. We had to carry tents to lodge in by night, and Mr. Smith took with him Yusief Ul Rus Jvulla, with his pans and pots, who was to cook for the party. However, we had started rather early in the spring, and so we had frequent rains on our way down, which compelled us to seek lodgings instead of tenting at night. Our first day's journey brought us to Sidon, where we saw the tomb that is said to be that of the 124 MY LIFE AND TIMES. prophet Jonah. Thus far, we had travelled on the coast ; we now turned towards the interior, and came to Beth- saida and Capernaum at the head of the Sea of Tiberias, where there is nothing to be seen excej^t one solitary room built of brick, upon entering which we were all at- tacked by the inhabiting fleas, and were glad to make our escape immediately. The whole country seems to be filled with fleas. We spent Sunday at the town of Tibe- rias, where the natives say the king of the fleas has his capital. It was rather amusing on Monday morning to see the two doctors from America trying to pick off hun- dreds of them from their blankets. Still Tiberias could not help being a city of profoundest interest to us all. Here was the water on which the Saviour walked, and here was the shore where he flrst called four of his disci- ples, and these Galilean towns were the chief scenes of his wondrous words and work. There seemed to be but one boat at use on the lake. Our lodgings were at a so-called hotel, and we dined and breakfasted as we might well suppose, on fish lineally descended from such as the apostles caught in their nets. We passed through Cana of Galilee on Monday, and spent that night at Nazareth, where our Lord was brought up, being entertained by a Greek family, friends of Eli Smith. At that house we saw in use several of those "water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece." Leaving Nazareth, we passed by Mt. Tabor, stopped awhile at the city of Samaria, saw the well on which Jesus sat, and the very piece of ground, no doubt, which Jacob gave to his son Joseph. There could be no doubt about this piece of ground, because the mountains and the plains remain just as they were in our Saviour's time. At length we reached Jerusalem. Dr. Anderson was anxious to be the first one to enter the city, but my horse was better than his, and I denied him that honor. Here we found a missionary of the Board, a Charlestonian, like myself, Kev. John F. Lanneau, and his wife, who was a Miss Gray, from Beech Island. I cannot detail all that we saw in and around Jerusalem, which made a pleasing, yet solemn impression on the heart. There were many things pointed out by the monks T.IFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 125 and other natives which we knew to be their mere in- ventions. But such things as the Valley of the Kedron, and most probably the Garden of Gethsemane, and the Mt. of Olives, were there just as nineteen hundred years ago. We were in time for the grand show which the Greeks and Armenians display on Easter Sunday at the so-called tomb of Christ. There is a small enclosed building which covers the alleged tomb, and the Greek and Armenian bishops open the door and go in there alone, and then send holy fire outside through apertures in the wall. The Latins, the Greeks and the Armenians each have a church building opening in common at this tomb, and thousands of people assemble in the galleries, which rise one above the other, so that multitudes were present to witness the miracle. The Romish Church for a long time had disowned this miracle, and accordingly their bishop took no part in it. We all stood high up among the spectators, looking down sadly upon this "Christian" superstition. Each one had a sheet or a night dress, or some other article, or even, perhaps, a towel or handkerchief, which he desired to have sanctified by these holy fiames, and he expected to be buried in these consecrated articles. And each one held a candle in his hand. As soon as the two bishops within the Holy Sep- ulchre were ready to thrust out the sacred light, the most favored persons that stood by got their candles lighted, and then, in much less time than it takes me to write this, every candle in these galleries was lighted, and the house was filled with a holy smoke. An earnest devotee would pass his hand through the flame of his candle and say it did not burn. My friend Calhoun, a big, strong man, grasped the hand of one such devotee, and made him hold it in the flame until he squealed from pain. For hours before the bishops had entered the tomb, it was sur- rounded by a crowd of devotees. But they could not be serious for so long a time ; consequently one would be lifted up and put upon the shoulders of the crowd, and thus would go creeping on their heads around the tomb ; not seldom offence would be given and taken by some, and there would be a little fight, and then one of the Turkish guards, placed there by the government to keep order 126 MY LIFE AND TIMES. amongst these Christians, would ply his long horhash, and come do^\Ti with sharp lashes on their unruly shoulders. From Jerusalem we went down to the Dead Sea, having a guard of Turkish soldiers, because that country is still infested with robbers. Long before reaching the Dead Sea we could see that we were approaching it. The country had a horrid look, just as one might expect to see it, from the description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire from heaven. Thence we visited Jeri- cho, and saw the beautiful stream which proceeds from the fountain which Elisha healed, and which runs down and enters the Jordan just above the Dead Sea. Returning to Jerusalem, our party divided, Drs. An- derson and Hawes, with Mr. Calhoun and Rev. Eli Smith, undertook a detour through the Hauran, which would occupy more time than I could spare, and more fatigue than my strength would admit, not to speak of our three ladies, so Dr. and Mrs. de Forest, with Miss Watkins and my wife and myself, determined to return at once to Beirut. We took a somewhat different route on our journey back, passing through the Val- ley of Esdraelon, beautifully covered, by the spring weather, with wild flowers of various colors from many different plants. The whole land looked like one vast carpet of red, green and blue hues spread out before us. We were able to tent out every night. Our journey being more direct and no rain interfering with us, we accom- plished it in ten days. We spent one delightful Sunday near the ruins of old Tyre at Ras-el-ain, or the head fountain. Here there issues from the sand of the shore an immense body of spring water, which has been en- closed within strong stone walls in the form of an octagon, and, as well as my memory serves me, at least ten feet high, and sixty or seventy feet in diameter, the water passing off through a stone aqueduct into the sea. It is a very ancient piece of masonry, and is credited to Hiram, king of Tyre, the friend of Solomon. ^N"© doubt the water comes from the bosom of the mountain, finding its way down below the shore, and forced up from amongst the rocks there to the surface. The walls enclosing this mag- nificent fountain are several feet thick, so that we could LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 127 walk all around and view it from above. I have spoken of it as one fountain, but not far distant there were two others just like this one, only smaller. The day we spent there was fine. We pitched our tents amongst the green grass, which grew luxuriantly. On the one side of us were the mountains of Lebanon, where Hiram's servants hewed out the great stones for the temple at Jerusalem, and on the other side of us was the sea, upon whose bosom he floated down these rocks to Joppa, and thence found means, somehow or other, to transport them up to Jeru- salem. We busied ourselves all the day in reading the Old Testament Scriptures, which give an account of all these things. Returning to Beirut, we found little Anna Maria quite well and overjoyed to see us. Her exceeding great delight the little thing manifested very touchingiy to us in standing, just for a moment, at her mother's knee, and then crossing over and standing with me, just for a moment, and so, from one of us to the other, for a long time, crossing and re-crossing, until she had worn out her happiness. We got back to Smyrna in the month of May, but we were required to pass a quarantine of a month, two or three miles from the city, down the gulf. Maria Shrewsbury and our little John and Lizzie frequently came down to cheer us, but at last we got home again to them and to our work. Our fourth daughter, Susan Dunlap, was born in the city of Smyrna February 6, 1845, and was baptized by the Rev. Thomas P. Johnson. Shortly before this event, our dear Maria Shrewsbury began to be indisposed, and the indisposition increased upon her daily. There was more or less of typhoid fever in the city. I wished to send for Dr. Wood ; she objected stoutly. There were no symptoms alarming me ; she was simply languid and pre- ferred to lie on the sofa without moving about much. This continued day after day. Several times I said to her, without really feeling any fear myself, "Maria, you must let me call Dr. Wood ; this may be the beginning of typhoid fever." Still her unwillingness to have the doc- tor called continued and increased. Her indisposition having lasted about ten days, her sister meanwhile being all this time very unwell and remaining upstairs in her 128 MY LIFE AISTD TIMES. chamber, I became at last quite alarmed, and then my wife joined me in insisting positively that the doctor must be called. When he came he told me that we had lost too much time, that the case was decidedly typhoid fever. He required her to take to her bed, and began to treat the case vigorously, but could not break the hold which the fever had secured. She was a great favorite with everybody, and we had plenty of friends to assist in nursing her. She rapidly grew worse. Delirium came on, and in a short time death closed the scene on the 11th day of January, 1845, to our unspeakable loss. We buried her in the graveyard of the Dutch Consulate, and a marble tombstone marks the spot. She was a noble woman, had made a profession of her faith publicly in the Second Presbyterian church, Charleston, along with other new converts, just before coming to Smyrna with her sister. She naturally missed the many and various means of grace to which she had been introduced during a revival season. The experi- enced Christian who becomes a missionary feels this loss when he first enters upon his new life. Besides his closet and Bible and the family altar, and the weekly prayer- meeting of the missionaries, and possibly one weekly public service in English, he has no helps, such as abound in his native country, where Christian intercourse on all sides is at all times to be constantly enjoyed. Here was a young and inexperienced believer suddenly cut off from almost all outside assistance. What is a very serious ex- periment in a confirmed believer when he quits a Chris- tian country and goes out into the darkness, is a very dangerous experiment for the young Christian. How soon Maria began to feel its effects I cannot say. They first began to be observed by me when I noticed a repug- nance manifested by her to some of the doctrines of the Bible. Every Sunday I was expounding the Epistle to the Romans at a service in English in my house, which a number of persons, including my translators, attended. Some of the truths set before us by the apostle, Maria felt that she could not receive. She had superior powers of mind, like her two sisters, and she began to reason against Paul's doctrine. Her own discovery of her opposition LIFE AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 129 to the Word of God made her begin to doubt whether she was a Christian. Had this occurred to her at home, where Christian influences would have surrounded her on all sides, these temptations to unbelief by the arch-enemy might have been more easily overcome, but she was out in the darkness, and to a considerable degree was standing solitary and alone. I tried often to help her, but did not succeed. I said to her that I ought to remind her my view of Paul's meaning was not accepted by all Christian believers. Many good Methodist people, and intelligent ones too, interpreted him differently from me. "But," she replied, "I see with my own eyes that you do correctly apprehend his meaning, so that I can't take any comfort from Arminian errors of interpretation." Mr. Calhoun, who admired her greatly, sought to relieve her mind, but in vain, so did other missionary brethren. The trouble with her was that she saw distinctly the absolute sov- ereignty of God, as Paul sets it forth, and, as her heart did not cheerfully bow to that sovereignty, she could not hope that she was a true Christian. The darkness which enveloped my dear young sister grew deeper continually. At last, as she told me, she gave up all reading of the Bible and praying. She continued in this fearful condi- tion for some months. At length, in the mercy of our Lord, the darkness began to abate a little. Gradually, though very slowly, she was brought out of it, and light shone into her soul and peace with the light, the dreadful temptation was at an end, and she was again a cheerful Christian believer. All this preceded, by several months, the indisposition which ended so fatally. She had always been, ever since her arrival in Smyrna, the object of pe- culiar affection on my part. I loved her as my own sister. The dreadful darkness which had come into her soul made her an object likewise of intense solicitude on our part. When, therefore, her sister being still confined to her bed, I stood by myself at Maria's dying bedside, and saw her breathe her last, my heart said, "God be thanked that I have seen you at last safe over the river." CHAPTEK VI. Visit America for a Year, but my Return was not Allowed. — What Followed. 1846-1859. THE two years which followed our return from Jerusalem, in June, 1844, were perhaps the busiest of mj missionary life. Our modern Armenian N^ew Testament, after careful revision, had been printed and published, and sent into wide circulation. So had the translation of the Psalms into modern Armenian, pre- pared by Mr. Dwight and myself. There had begun, especially in Constantinople, quite a controversy between intelligent Armenians, who adhered zealously to their o^vn church views, and the missionaries there. The doc- trines of grace set forth on our side were vigorously op- posed. So there were numerous tracts and pamphlets produced in the discussion, the missionaries using our Smyrna press, , and their adversaries establishing one of their own at Constantinople. Every month we issued a sermon, by some one of our brethren, adapted to the times. The Magazine of Useful Knowledge, which I edited, a large part of it religious matter, was appearing every month. My time was chiefly occupied, however, with abridging, and, with Andreas Varjabed's assistance, translating D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation in Germany. It was a period of agitation in the Armenian mind, of which we were doing our best to take the advantage. This agitation had, indeed, begun years before. When the truly great Sultan Mahmoud died, in July, 1839, his em- pire was on the brink of ruin. He had massacred the Janizaries, the rulers of previous Sultans, but their de- struction required him to organize an army of soldiers like those of Europe. His navy liad been in a very re- markable way, to the astonishment of both Europe and A PERIOD OF AGITATION. 131 Asia, destroyed by the English fleet at J^avarino. He had built and sent forth a new one, but his rebellious vas- sal, lEehemet Ali, had beaten his army of eighty thousand in Mesopotamia, and treacherously got possession of his navy. At this very time, Malimoud, of the eagle eye and the iron will, departed this life, and Abdul Med j id, his son, sixteen years old, immediately ascended the throne. Reshid Pasha, reputed to be very favorable to Great Britain, became the prime minister. Very soon was issued that famous and historic rescript, entitled '"Ilatti Scheriff of Qui Ham." It was first promulgated at Gul Ham, which signifies the rose garden, a portion of the ground within the Seraglio Point. According to this re- markable document, all bribery and corruption were to cease in the Ottoman Empire, and perfect equality of rights was to be enjoyed by all its inhabitants. 'Eo one was to be executed without having a public trial. The true value of this document (in the words of Dr. Ham- lin) is to be sought in its effects upon the people, more than upon the administration of the government. It went all through the empire. It woke up the slumbering East. It was the first voice that announced to the people the object of government and the legitimate ends to be attained by it. It gave the Rayahs (that is to say, the Christian subjects of the empire) courage to contend for their rights. It brought forward the novel idea, that men should be equal before the law, and all accused persons should be entitled to a fair and public trial. It set aside the powerful and pernicious clique of government bank- ers. It diminished the civil power of the clergy. In a word, it loudly changed the current of thought, putting it into new channels, never to revert again to the old. It kindled the rage of the old Mussulmans, but it greatly ex- cited the hopes of the party of progress among the Turks, as well as those of the oppressed Rayahs. It was about three years after the publication of this remarkable constitution for the Turkish empire that an Armenian named Carabet, otherwise called Hovakim, was executed as an apostate from Islam. His headless body was found lying in a public street on the outside of the Seraglio w^alls. His head, with a Frank's cap stuck on 132 MlY life and times. it, was put between his thighs. Thus, after a very short period, the sacred Ilatti Scheriff is trampled uuder foot, to the rejoicing of the old Mussulman party, but to the extreme dissatisfaction and contempt and vexation of the party of progress amongst the Turks. It also aroused the indignation of all the European ambassadors at Con- stantinople, Russia alone excepted. The English ambas- sador, Sir Stratford Canning, took the lead, insisting that the Sultan should make a solemn promise that such an act on the part of his government should never be re- peated. This was given first by the Grand Vizier of the empire, but repeated, in a personal interview, by the Sul- tan, which Sir Stratford had demanded. And the next day the Sultan gave his assent to all this, in a public audi- ence, adding, "ISTeither shall Christianity be insulted in my dominions, nor shall Christians be in any way perse- cuted for their religion." How could the events, to which I have been referring, fail of producing great excitement amongst all the differ- ent races, providentially associated together, in Constan- tinople, and the other cities of the Turkish empire, each of these races zealously addicted to its own religion ? Their effect upon the Christian Rayahs was very de- cided. They had understood the Haiti Scheriff to confer on them important and sacred rights. They saw these rights were trampled on in the execution of Carabet. Of course, there was excitement amongst them. The spirit of religious inquiry, which had been previously roused amongst the Armenians, was naturally very much pro- moted. The missionary cause amongst them was much advanced. These events sensibly diminished the power and influence of the patriarch and other ecclesiastics. Their attention also being absorbed by these events, the missionaries were enabled to go quickly on with their work in its various departments. ISTevertheless, in this very period of deep interest and high excitement, I was being providentially led to con- sider, seriously, the question of returning with my fam- ily to my own country for a visit of twelve months. Ten years before this time, when we first sailed for Smyrna to be missionaries, we had no expectation of ever return- MY VISIT TO AMEKICA. 133 ing home again. At that period the prevalent idea was that the foreign missionary embarked for his whole life. It was enlistment, then, for the whole war. The church had not then come to consider it expedient that mission- aries should have a furlough after some years' service. Still, upon occasion, it sometimes happened that a mis- sionary had to return home on some particular errand of importance. In my case, there was a failure of eyesight, which had indeed slightly manifested itself at the close of my Seminary life, but which my peculiar missionary call- ing, and especially the effects of small-pox, had aggra- vated. The inspection of manuscript, and the examina- tion of proof sheets in the Armenian language, is quite trying, even to a sound eye, owing to the great similarity of many of the letters used. I began to think a year's rest would be advantageous. And, as my father and mother were approaching three-score and ten, and re- peatedly expressed the desire to see me once more, I was conferring with my brethren at Constantinople, and re- luctantly considering how I could best prepare for the voyage and visit. During the year 1845 there began to be talk of organiz- ing an evangelical alliance of all Christian believers. This was to be attempted in the summer of 1846 in the city of London. As this period approached, and the de- termination was reached that I should go on my visit home, my brethren in Constantinople expressed the wish that, passing through London, I should represent our mission in this convention. The invitation to this assem- bly had at first been for all evangelical churches and min- isters. Afterwards it was published that no slaveholder would be admitted. The anti-slavery discussion in the United States, I well remember as beginning during my last year at Princeton, and I had read perhaps the very first number of William Lloyd Garrison's paper. The Lib- erator, but it had made little progress in America, up to the time of my embarkation for Smyrna. During the ten or eleven years of my missionary life up to this time, it had not very greatly interested me, being absorbed in my Armenian work. The published denial to all slaveholders of admission to the alliance, of course, set me to thinking, 134 MY LIFE AND TIMES. and what I had never thought of before arrested my atten- tion now, viz., that, in a sense, I was one of those who were guilty of the sin of holding slaves. In the course of correspondence, I mentioned this discovery, which I had made, to my brethren in Constantinople. More than one of them had, not long before this, returned from Amer- ica, and they wrote me at once, very positively, that unless I could get rid of this relationship, I would never be able to get back to the Armenian work. Consequently, I wrote at once to my wife's sister, saying that we renounced all right or title to any property in these slaves, but I re- solved at the same time to abjure the honor of a seat in the alliance. To my astonishment, I found my brother-in- law. Dr. Thomas Smyth, in London. He had overworked his strength, and had crossed the Atlantic for rest. He urged my attending the alliance with him, stating that they had resolved to receive slaveholders, at the prelim- inary conferences, under protest. I had engaged our passage to Kew York, and had some ten days to spare be- fore sailing from Liverpool, so we went in together. Dur- ing the whole time of my attendance, this Evangelical Alliance proved to be nothing at all but a gathering of abolitionists, to denounce slaveholders for their sins. There were present well-known Unitarian and Univer- salist ministers, against whose membership not a word was raised. These were more evangelical than any slave- holder could be! There were some twenty-odd Ameri- cans in the preliminary conference, nearly all from the JSTorthern States, but, to a man, they all resisted the claim of an evangelical alliance to legislate against slavehold- ing. Dr. Skinner, of ITorth Carolina, originally, but then of Philadelphia; Dr. Humphreys, originally of Massachusetts, but then of Louisville; Dr. Smyth and myself, if I remember rightly, were all that hailed from the South. Dr. Samuel H. Cox, of I^ew York, was the acknowledged leader on the American side. After some ten days' earnest discussion, the question of admitting slaveholders to an evangelical alliance was referred to a committee. Their report came in on Saturday night. There was intense excitement in the body. The report ex- cluded all slaveholders. Sir Culling Eardley Smith, MY VISIT TO AMERICA. 135 chairman of the body, was manifestly for rushing the re- port through, without discussion. As he was about to put tlie question, I lifted my voice in protest, which caused a check in the chairman's movement. Dr. Smyth, who was standing alongside of me, ejaculated that I was a missionary from Turkey, thinking thereby to give some weight to my few words of protest. Dr. Humphreys, who was standing on the other side of me, cried out that he seconded my protest. Dr. Smyth did the same. And then, to my great delight, one after another, if I do not mistake, the whole American delegation backed us up. But, nevertheless, the report was adopted. My time was up, and on Monday morning I took my family to Liverpool, and sailed for ISTew York. The Evangelical Alliance met that morning, and the chairman called on the Rev. Gorham Abbott, of Massachusetts, a most devout and lovely Christian brother, whom I well knew, to lead the Alliance in prayer. What followed was afterwards reported to me. Mr. Abbott's was a most touching prayer, deploring before the Lord our Saviour the sad division which had arisen in the body, and be- seeching that it might yet be healed. After that, the Americans spoke again, explaining to their English brethren that the state of public sentiment amongst Chris- tians generally, in their country, was such that the report could not be sustained. Accordingly, it was recommitted, and so modified as to be acceptable to all. How much the modifications amounted to I cannot now recall. On my arrival in New York I was received by my brothers, James and Ellison, and my sisters, Susan and Jane Anne, with a very warm welcome. There was an English girl, some fifteen years old, in Smyrna, to whose father, an honest blacksmith, I had been helpful in in- ducing him to give up intoxicating drink. Mr. Jones was grateful, and when my wife wished to get Harriet's help in carrying our youngest child across the water, he gave his cheerful consent, and I promised in remunera- tion to give her a year's schooling at some good ISTew Eng- land institution, and to procure her safe ])assage home again. My first business, after arrival in ^N'ew York, was to take Harriet Jones to Hartford, Conn., and place her 136 MY LIFE AND TIMES. with j\frs. Bird in a scliool which her husband, the Rev. Mr. Bird, formerly a missionary to Syria, had recently established there. Harriet was a dear, good child, a pro- fessing Christian, very much attached to little Susie and her mother, and we were greatly attached to her. Susie took quickly to her uncle James, in place of Harriet. His petting won her heart, and using the Greek language, which was the most familiar to her, she called him "allo- papa," that is, my other father. The steamship South- erner was about to sail on her first or second voyage to Charleston, and my family all went with my brothers and sisters in her. I felt it became me to repair first to Boston, and report to the Prudential Committee of the Board. Secretary Anderson, who had been at my house in Smyrna, took me home with him to the neighboring village of Roxbury. My visit was of several days. We went in together every morning, and I spent the day at the missionary rooms. On one of those evenings, as we walked home together, I turned to him suddenly, and said, "Dr. Anderson, I have lately discovered that I am a slaveholder through my wife." He started, as if I had shot him. He said, "I am very sorry to hear what you say," and he proceeded to tell me how necessary it would be to rid myself of that relationship. I told him what I had already written to my wife's sister, and he urged that if that did not prove to be sufiicient, I would, on reaching Charleston, do whatever else was necessary to accomplish the result. He then gave me an account of what infinite trouble John Leighton Wilson's case had given both to Wilson and the Board. He said that when it was pub- lished throughout ]!^ew England that I was a missionary from Charleston, the inquiry would be immediately raised whether I was a slaveholder ; and that the attack of the abolitionists upon the Board, which had quieted down somewhat, would be renewed with vigor, and, as in Wilson's case, it would cost the Board one-half their an- nual resources, besides giving them and me a great deal of annoyance by the public discussion. Dr. Wilson, it will be remembered, before becoming a foreign mission- ary, thought fit to send all his slaves, some eighteen in number, to Liberia, with the exception of one boy, whom. MY VISIT TO AMERICA. 137 for some reason or other, he allowed to remain with his own family as a slave. "The Board," said Dr. Anderson, ''had refused to give up the missionary Wilson, prefer- ring to submit to the bitterest and most injurious re- proaches on his account." As for himself. Dr. Anderson told me, and I record it here to his honor, that he would have seen the American Board shivered into fragments rather than have dishonorably and unjustly abandoned John Leighton Wilson. The discussion in the Evangelical Alliance had waked me up to the importance of the anti-slavery controversy. Sympathy with my own people was roused in me. I made no promise to Dr. Anderson. Arriving at home, my attention was soon drawn to the religious condition of the negroes in the city. In Dr. Smyth's church there were some three hundred colored members. I often looked at them, as they sat in the gallery, and felt how far preach- ing to his white congregation went over their heads. The same was true of Dr. Forrest's church, the First Presby- terian, where there were some five hundred negro mem- bers. In the different Methodist churches the colored membership was some five thousand. In all the other churches, especially the Baptist, there was a large colored membership, so that the total colored membership in Charleston could not have been less than some eight or ten thousand persons. It was divided out more or less thoroughly into classes, under the leadership of chosen colored men of good repute. There were at least twelve thousand negroes, however, in Charleston, not included in this membership, and there was good reason to believe that, among the colored leaders, many were both incompe- tent and unfaithful. Before I went abroad my thoughts v^ had turned to this people, and I had considered the ques- / tion of following in the track of Dr. C. C. Jones, who was [^ an apostle to the negroes of Liberty county, Ga. But the \ call of the heathen world, where no gospel at all had ever \ been preached, appeared to me to outweigh that of negroes \ in this Christian country, where, in a great many of the / Christian churches throughout the whole South, more or J less attention was paid to their spiritual wants. Besides this, in the city of Charleston, and no doubt in many 138 MY LIFE AND TIMES. otlier Southern cities and towns, as well as in country neighborhoods, the white children, in many a family, were teaching the negroes, old and young, to read the Bible. Very often, however, during my missionary life, my thoughts had reverted to the negro field at home, and sometimes I questioned whether I had done right to turn my back on it. But coming back to my native city, from missionary labors to the Armenians, who are a nominally Christian people, my old interest in the Southern negroes naturally reasserted itself. I thought I saw plainly that Christianity, as accepted by white masters, had not ade- quately impressed itself on their poor black dependents. It seemed very clear that the men of my race could not properly discharge their duty to their slaves vicariously. They could not righteously meet their religious obliga- tions to human beings, providentially brought under their control and care, by throwing them upon the shoulders of half-instructed men of their own color. I said to myself, it certainly is time for some white minister to make a beginning of public instruction, specially and separately, for the negroes, in the performance of which he should be assisted by white teachers under his leadership. Such a beffinnine-, I was convinced, with the blessing of God, must be followed by auspicious results, m more than one direction. Conferring with my brother William, who was an elder in the Second Presbyterian church, consid- erably younger than myself, but in whose religious char- acter and sound judgment I had the very highest confi- dence, I found him perfectly alive to these views, and I had good reason to consider him a fair representative of the sentiments of the most enlightened Christian people in the city. But I myself was a missionary to the Armenians, at f home only for a visit. My work amongst them was wait- \ ing for me. It was an important and encouraging one, attractive to me in the highest degree, and, as being liter- / ary work, was suited to my individual taste, shared by me with brethren in whom I had the highest confidence, and for them all undying affection. I was happy in that work. There was no position in the church at home that I would compare with it in any respect. Yet I did feel MY VISIT TO AMERICA. 139 that, as a Southern Christian minister of the white race, ^ and indirectly a slaveholder myself, the negro had a claim ] on me which I was bound to consider. My own judgment being thus unsettled by conflicting views of a question very important to me, I naturally de- sired to confer with Dr. Anderson. I had been consider- ably intimate with him. We had been in each other's families, and so knew each other well. I still possess sun- dry letters addressed to me by him during my life in Smyrna, upon w^hich he wrote "Private" and "Confiden- tial." Thus, as early as ISTovember, I had communicated to him some impressions made on my mind by the infor- mation I had acquired of the religious condition of the negroes in Charleston. I continued to acquaint him by letters, at different times, with the course of my own thoughts on this subject, and I have in my possession brief notes showing the drift of the letters which I wrote to him. I was not writing to him for advice. It was, on my part, just a friendly correspondence with one whom I greatly revered, intended to show him how I was feeling regarding this matter, and to draw forth some expression of his feelings in return. The first few of his replies I have lost, but I still possess one of date January 8, 1847. This was a hurried and exceedingly brief one. He was a very busy man, continually having difficult questions pressing on his mind — and many of them both very difli- cult and very delicate. In the letter just referred to (and I feel sure this was the case with the others, which during these fifty years have passed out of my possession) there is not one consideration presented by him in favor of my return to Smyrna. I subjoin a copy of my reply to this brief letter. [Copy.] Charleston, January 20, 1847. Rev. R. Anderson, D. D., Secretary, etc. My Dear Brother: Yours of the 8th inst. I duly received. I remember your observation to me in Smyrna respecting the dis- agreeable position into which you were once put by an appointed missionary, who was led to doubt whether he ought not to remain at home, but who desired to get the Prudential Committee to take on them the responsibility of deciding that he ought to stay, and 1-40 MY LIFE AND TIMES. who labored hard, but in vain, to get them to take that respon- sibility. I am far from wishing you, or them, to take this responsibility in my case, though I am sincerely desirous to get your aid, as far as possible, in deciding the question myself. And I think that a missionary, twelve years connected with you, and always enjoying your confidence, has a right to your brotherly advice and counsel. Will you pardon me for saying that I have looked for some con- siderations to be suggested by you on the side of my returning to Turkey? It has occurred to me that perhaps you thought the question was from the first really decided in my mind; but this was not and is not now the case, although I feel that I am gradually verging to a decision. One other cause for your silence, respecting the claims of the Armenian work upon me, has suggested itself, and I beg that you will candidly tell me if it has really had any weight in your mind. Do you apprehend any embarrassment to the board from my return, in reference to that nominal relation which I mentioned to you that I had renounced? or in reference to the subject of slavery? And has this affected your letters to me in any shape or form? I know what trouble you have had with the case of Mr. Wilson, and how natural it will be for people to be inquiring all about me when I come to set sail again for Smyrna. As to that relation above referred to, the matter stands exactly in statu quo — I have done nothing more about it. Yours (signed), Jno. B. Adger. To this letter I received a reply, of which I subjoin a copy: Missionary House, Boston, January 27, 1847. Rev. J. B. Adger, Charleston, S. C. My Dear Brother: I yesterday received yours of the 20th. I fully admit your right to whatever brotherly advice and counsel my circumstances enable me to give you. I will say more; you are entitled to tlie utmost frankness on my part, and you shall have it. In neither of my letters do I believe that I had so much as a thought of your ever becoming so related to slavery as to occasion us any trouble. I did not think of it, and consequently my seeming reserve was not owing to that. What effect thinking much on that subject would have, I cannot tell. I believe you are as desirous as any one I know of to do what is right in relation to that thing, and I have not believed myself called on to spend time in imagining what troubles you might be the occasion of in future. I have, however, rather inferred from the course this question MY VISIT TO AMERICA. 141 has had in your mind since your return to Charleston that, in point of fact, it would seem to you to be duty to spend the residue of your life in missionary labors in the South. I can hardly tell why that impression preponderated, only that it did; nor have I felt the least inclined to blame you or to think less favorably of you. This, no doubt, has restrained my pen somewhat, but probably not much. My avoiding the responsibility of positive advice is habitual with me. It is a great thing to go on a mission, and greater to take a family of children abroad ; and I feel that nothing but a man's own spontaneous convictions of duty will justify his going. I should certainly rejoice, as all the brethren of your mission of course would, if you saw your duty to return clear, and should act upon that conviction; and if it were necessary to show the sincerity of my desire for this result, by arguing in favor of your so doing, I would fill a sheet with arguments. But I can say nothing which you do not already know better than I do, and I cannot bring my- self to write arguments merely to show my sincerity. You know we are in the crisis of our work amongst the Armenians, and that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Armenians scattered over Turkey, who are inquiring what they shall do to be saved, but have not yet been brought to take a stand on the Lord's side; and that, in order to this, we must, in the shortest possible time, fill the country with competent evangelists and books. But I am arguing, and I stop. Do that which you regard as right, my dear brother, whether it be to go or stay. I shall not distrust your integrity in any event. With affectionate regards to Mrs. Adger, as ever, most truly yours, (Signed) Rtjfus Anderson, Secretary of A. B. C. F. M. The impression made on my mind by this letter was not pleasant. I had not asked for ''positive advice," much less Q-fficial advice, or for his taking the responsibility of deciding the question for me. I had, in my letter to him, expressly disclaimed the wish for anything of this kind. I had written to him as an intimate friend, for ''brotherly advice and counsel," expecting him to say something or other in some one of his letters indicating some desire for the continuation of my relations to the foreign missionary work. ISTot once had he ever reminded me, until I had dragged it out of him, that "there was a crisis in the Ar- menian work," and that it was necessary, "in the shortest possible time, to fill the country with competent evangel- ists and books," It was rather unpleasant for Dr. Ander- 142 MY LIFE AND TIMES. son to imply that I had wanted him to fill a sheet, or even a paragraph, with arguments for m}^ retnrn. But there was a portion of this letter that was even painful to me. It was where Dr. Anderson professed so decidedly that he had not given a thought to my "ever be- coming so related to slavery as to occasion us any trouble," and that he was not called on "to spend time in imagining what troubles you might be the occasion of in future." This correspondence is almost fifty years old, and, as I read it over to-day, I am able to realize that Dr. Ander- son had been thinking of so many and such great matters, since the day that we walked and talked together about my relationship to slaveholding, that he had quite for- gotten the earnest words he spoke that day, the anxious wishes he had expressed, that I could be freed from that relationship, and the very impressive history he had given me of the trouble and injury which John Leighton Wil- son's case had occasioned the Board, and how he foretold the probability of my case having the same eifects. But, at the time of my receiving and reading this letter, that charitable supposition did not occur to me, and, as I am writing a history of what took place, I am bound to tell just how the letter operated on my feelings and conduct. I saw plainly the inconsistency. I could not resist the impression that there was insincerity. I was led to sus- pect that from the time we had walked and talked about this matter. Dr. Anderson had been resolved to make it very easy for me to dissolve my connection with the Amer- ican Board. I was not willing to become another incum- brance in the way of that honored Board. They should not have to defend me, as they had to defend John T^eigh- ton Wilson. I would make it easy for them to be rid of the second slaveholder. Accordingly, on the 19th of April, I wrote my resigna- tion, but delayed sending it for some days, that I might receive letters that I was expecting from my brethren in Smyrna and Constantinople. Having received and con- sidered these, I forwarded my resignation on the 19th of May, and it was accepted. I said to the Secretary, "It is needless for me to go into any detail of the reasons which have led me to this determination. They may be summed MY KETUKN NOT ALLOWED. 143 up in one statement — I feel that I am called, in the provi- ■> denee of God, to give myself to the work of preaching the „, gospel to the blacks." Referring to the twelve happy ^ years I had spent in the mission, and the many tender ties which I was rupturing, I remarked that the state of my eyesight would have required me, had I been able to re- turn, to be transferred to some other department of the work, that I was very loath to quit that work, and that I would gladly go back and spend the residue of my days with the Armenians. Then, to the gentlemen of the com- mittee, and to himself, as also his colleagues at the mis- sionary house, I bade a respectful and affectionate fare- well. It did not appear to me needful or suitable that, in this official communication to the Board, I should refer to what had passed between me and Dr. Anderson. And here I must mention the somewhat remarkable fact, that, whereas some ten years before this, there were at least a dozen Southern missionaries connected with this Board, yet, in the providence of God, one way or another, every one of them was brought home either before or soon after my resignation, John Leighton Wilson being, perhaps, the very last one. Thus ended my twelve and a half years of personal ser- f vice in the foreign missionary work. It had been a very -^ happy life, both to me and to my wife, who shed more tears when it was decided that we could not go back than she had wept when we first set forth, leaving all that was dear behind. Here let me record my testimony to the exalted char- acter and genuine nobility of the missionaries with whom I was associated. Let me also state, as to their families, that, notwithstanding many severe trials encountered by them, still, it seemed to me, they were, on the whole, the happiest set with which I have ever been acquainted. Foreign missionary life, as I saw it, was certainly calcu- lated to be a happy one. It was a life of a very simple faith. The missionary had only an economical support, could lay up nothing for the future, and trusted his wife and children after him to the good providence of his Mas- ter. Then the conduct of the missionary's life also was 144 MY LIFE AND TIMES. very simple. He did not have to be mucli conformed to the world around him. In fact, the very object of his mission was to effect a change in the character, life and manners of the people to whom he came. The minister at home, in some things, must carefully conform to his con- gregation, for many of their ideas and customs are good and right. With the foreign missionary, it is different. He must set himself in opposition to their most cherished ideas and their most settled habits of life. While he en- deavors to give no offence, yet he must not seek to "please men," or he "cannot be the servant of Christ." The for- eign missionary life is calculated to make a man feel that he is a stranger and a pilgrim in the world. And then, if his work is prosperous, as ours was, there is much to rouse the enthusiasm of the missionary. I would like to have spent my life in that work. I do not know any man whose career is more to be admired than that of my friend and colleague. Dr. Elias Riggs, of Constantinople. He has spent his whole ministerial life of sixty-four years in the Levant, first in the Greek work, then in the Armenian and Bulgarian. A man of the rarest linguistic ability, mastering first the modern Greek, in which he preached like a native, he has spent many subsequent years in translating, or revising the whole Scriptures into Arme- nian, and, finally, Bulgarian. His wife, after many years of service, lies buried in that land. Their children after them are, with the exception of one, a professor in the Theological Seminary of the Dutch Reformed Church, l^ew Brunswick, ]^. J., following in their parents' foot- steps. One, who became blind from scarlet fever, in very early childhood, got his education in America, and has served for years as a very useful professor in a mission- ary college at Aintab, near to the ancient Cilicia and Tar- sus, where the Apostle Paul was born and reared. All Dr. Riggs' children, sons and daughters, are missionaries, and now, towards the end of his eighty-sixth year, he is still working, waiting, and watching for the Master. What a splendid course this man has run ! Where is the minister in America who has lived sixty-four years of more useful life? But, alas! in this year of 1896, in this month of September, it does seem as if he, and all his MY KETUKN NOT ALLOWED, 145 children, are in great danger of being massacred hj the Turks. Very well ; if that turns out to be so, there will just be so many added to the "noble army of martyrs," whom we honor so much, along with "the glorious com- pany of the apostles" and "the goodly fellowship of the prophets." My connection with the American Board was now brought to a close, not from any purpose or wish of mine, but directly and chiefly through the influence of ignorant "Kew England fanaticism, and unscriptural and unchris- tian prejudice against slaveholders. Of course, it all came to pass in the wise providence of God. The time had come for me to return to my own people, who were suffering the unjust reproaches, both of the ISTorth and of Great Britain, and henceforth I was to cast in my lot with them, and bear my share of all the future would bring forth. There was a great work, too long neglected, in Charleston, and a small beginning of it was now to be commenced. With other hands than mine, and by the magic of another voice, namely, that of John Lafayette Girardeau, it was subsequently to grow apace. Great events were about to occur. A certain mighty prejudice in Charleston was to be overthrown, and Christian mas- ters there and elsewhere were to put forth more direct efforts for the religious instruction and eternal salvation of their slaves. There was to be a dreadful war, and slavery was to come to an end. Charleston, where the war began, was to continue one of its chief centres to its close, and the feeble commencement of negro separate religious education directly by white men, was to create and foster a strong Christian affection between blacks and whites, and this was to prove eminently propitious to our beleaguered city during all the dangers of the war. To myself, personally, another and very acceptable re- sult was to come. My eyes, so weary with the trying work of Armenian reading, writing, and proof reading, were to have comparative rest. » But the American Board's troubles about slavery and slaveholders were not yet to come to an end. John Leigh- ton Wilson's case had indeed (as Dr. Anderson told me on that walk to Roxbury) given them immense trouble, but 146 MY LIFE AND TIMES. that was nothing compared with what was to follow. The first public organized effort that I know of, on the part of the abolitionists, to bring the Board over to their ground, was made in 1840, at their annual meeting, held in Prov- idence, Ehode Island. It came in the form of a memorial, remonstrating against the Board's accepting money from slaveholders. In answer to this memorial, the Board ac- knowledged the justice of the ground which it took, that God will not accept the fruits of robbery for sacrifice, but pleaded the practical difficulty there was in discriminat- ing between the various persons at the South who were contributing to its treasury. This was enough for the abolitionists ; it gave them an entering wedge in the Board's acknowledgment that, on the whole, their prin- ciples and reasonings were correct. Thus, after thirty years' receipt and use of the money of slaveholders, and after all the foundations of the Board had been laid in blood and sin, it began to be determined that no more of such material should be employed in the superstructure. Of course, next year at Philadelphia, the abolitionists renew their onset. Their claim now is that the Board must break their studied silence on the subject of slavery, and show their sympathy with those Christians who abhor that system of abominations, and it is hinted that other- wise their income must be diminished. The Board's an- swer was that it had been organized simply to propagate the gospel amongst the heathen, and that this work would be enough for angels. But they went on to add that this Board could sustain no relation to slavery which implied approbation of it, or connection or sympathy with it. Again, in 1842, there are more memorials, as also in 1844, and in that year occurs the first reference, on the part of the disaffected, to the holding of slaves by the Choctaw Indians, amongst whom the Board had long had a flourishing mission. This was a new point of attack, and the Board promised to look into the matter and give answer at their next annual meeting. In 1845 at Brooklyn, the Board were outspoken against the wickedness of the system of slavery. But they set forth, as amongst their fundamental principles, that church membership cannot be refused to any persons Avho WHAT FOLLOWED. 147 give evidence of repentance and faith, and also that the missionaries, in connection with the churches they have gathered, are the only rightful judges of this evidence. But, so far have the Board succumbed to the rising power of this tyrant fanaticism, that this year they write to the Choctaw missionaries that they should train their church members to the duty of emancipating their slaves. We recall to mind just here that it was this same year (1845), about four months previous to the meeting of the Board, that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, Old School, meeting at Cincinnati, Ohio, while they condemned what no good man at the South, no Chris- tian slaveholder, will approve, viz., the evils that are in- cidentally connected with the system of slavery, as with all human institutions and relationships, such as parent and child, husband and wife, did yet declare to the same effect with these two fundamental principles, adopted by the American Board, that "the church of Christ is a spiritual body, whose jurisdiction extends only to the religious faith and moral conduct of her members, and that she cannot legislate when Christ has not legislated, nor make terms of membership which he has not made." They added that they could not "denounce the holding of slaves as necessarily a heinous and scandalous sin, calcu- lated to bring upon the church the curse of God, without charging the apostles of Christ with conniving at such sin, and introducing into the church such sinners." Standing firm on this Scriptural ground, this church has ever since enjoyed peace and quiet on the subject of slavery, while, at the same time, through her ministers and churches at the South, she has been humbly endeavor- ing to preach the gospel to both bond and free. In 1846 the subject of slavery was hardly introduced at the Board's annual meeting. Perhaps there had come to pass a lull in the abolitionist war, and this being the very year of my return home, perhaps I might thus account for Dr. Anderson's seeming, in his correspondence with me, to have forgotten the great anxiety he had expressed to me at Roxbury, respecting all the trouble my slave- holding was about to bring upon the Board. However, be this as it may, the war was renewed, and 148 MY LIFE AND TIMES. in great vigor, at the very next meeting, viz., in 1847. It was felt that the missionaries in the Indian country had not given proper heed to the instructions about emancipa- tion, and that a secretary must be sent out to investigate the matter of slavery among the Choctaws, and there having occurred two vacancies among the secretaries, these are filled with two new ones, both of them decided abolitionists, viz., the Rev. Mr. Treat and the Rev. Dr. Pomeroy. It soon became manifest what would be the effects of this election. At the next annual meeting, Boston, 1848, Secretary Treat, who had been sent to the Choctaws, made his re- port, and then^ in the name of the committee, wrote his famous letter to the missionaries. Mr. Treat's letter takes the ground that "the system of slavery is always and everywhere sinful," and that "all slaveholding is sinful, too, except where it is involuntary, or continued solely for the benefit of the slave." The missionary must denounce it, "but discreetly." ISTo slaveholder may sit at the Lord's table, until he proves that he is free from all this guilt. The missionary must also abstain from the use of all slave labor in any form whatever. And their support may be withheld if they disobey these instructions. This monstrous production was reviewed by Dr. Hodge in liisBihlical Repertory for January, 1849. The reviewer described the letter as unexceptionable in manner, couched in the blandest terms, yet archiopiscopal in its tone and written just as the "Servant of Servants at Rome" is wont to write. He also points out how preposterous were the claims of the committee to the control over mission- aries and missionary churches. He dwells on the posi- tion taken against the use of slave labor in all the domes- tic and farming operations of the mission. Thoir poor sickly wives must not hire a slave to cook or wash for their large boarding schools, lest the system of slavery be thereby encouraged. And yet the whole Xorth and the committee, doubtless, likewise were daily using the products of slave labor. This, said the reviewer, was straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel ; it is being dreadfully troubled with the mote in our brother's eye, but quite indifferent to the beam in our o^vn — it was a WHAT FOLLOWED. 149 carping at trifles in the laborious, devoted men in the wilderness, but blind to tenfold greater evils in the pam- pered churches at home. The effect of Dr. Hodge's review was sensibly felt at the missionary rooms, Boston. Immediately on its ap- pearance, the Secretaries, over their o^vn names, send forth a disclaimer. There was nothing authoritative in the committee's correspondence with the Choctaw nation. The committee were only discussing with the missionaries certain important questions. It was at this time I addressed a letter to Dr. Anderson, a copy of which lies before me. It was dated January 15, 1819, following their meeting in October, 1848. I said, "Be not offended if, with the freedom of an old friend of yours and a former missionary, and still an honorary member of the Board, I repeat here my remark made to you in Syria, that you are yielding to the abolitionists ! They are changing public sentiment, and you must speak somewhat in their language, or you are crippled. The pressure is tremendous. It seems, moreover, hard that you, who have, as you say, nothing directly to do with Southern slavery, should be made to share any part of the burden of JSTorthern popular odium, which is cast on us of the South. . . . We, at the South, are standing on the Bible ground, and those who force you to speak out against us are standing on ground which they think higher than the Bible ! That we must sustain the institu- tion of slavery against the mad and wild interference of people outside our borders, is plain to me, even as a friend to the negro. Whether you ought to give up your o^\Ti position and be forced into the new position of a lever to act on us, you must and you will, doubtless, decide for yourselves. But, in my view, there is no higher calling for the American citizen, as a citizen, than to stand in the breach with even a few, and contend for sound and just principles against the fury of the populace." In 1849, 'l850, 1851, 1852 nothing worthy of note, in respect to this matter, occurs at the meetings of the Board, except that in 1852 it fell to the lot of this same Mr. Treat to bring in a report on the success of the Indian missions. And it was indeed a glowing report of the 150 MY LIFE AND TIMES. growing temperance, improving agriculture, advancing education, excellent government and constant, prayerful, intelligent and zealous piety of these same slaveholding Clioctaws. As to the churches, he says, "When we enter their churches, Ave feel that the Lord, in very deed, is in the midst of them." In 1852, then, the Choctaw churches are not very great sinners, albeit fully tolerating in their communion a sys- tem pronounced in 1849 to be "alwavs and everywhere sinful." In the annual meeting in 1853 another very fine report of progress among the Clioctaws is read by this Mr. Treat. There is evidently a desire to have the action of 1848 pass into oblivion. But this may not be. At Hartford, Conn., in 1854, up comes the Choctaw question again, under the full blast of the well-known excitement about the admis- sion of Kansas as a free State, which so stirred the whole United States. There had also been legislation by the Clioctaws against any citizens of the United States inter- fering with the rights of slaveholders. This legislation was provoked, it would seem, by the visit and letter of Mr. Treat, and especially by a suggestion that had been made to the mission, to seek release from their contract with the Choctaw nation about their boarding schools. The Choctaw legislation was very offensive to the aboli- tionists in that meeting of the Board. Accordingly, the Treat letter was fully endorsed, the Senior Secretary being absent from this meeting, on his official visitation to the missions of the Board in the East Indies. Friends of the Board in I^ew York were protesting now against some of these proceedings. Consequently, the Rev. George W. Wood, of the Constantinople mission, (an acting secretary at the time, during Dr. Anderson's absence) was sent out to the Choctaw country, to arrange a new platform. I knew Mr. Wood well, and loved him much. We had been colleagues together for years in the Armenian mission. He had so much genuine kindness of heart, and so much gentleness of manner, and was withal so clear and discriminating in his mental powers, that not one man in ten thousand was fitted like him for such an embassy, albeit his proceedings in this case did not fully WHAT FOLLOWED. 151 comport with the character I had formed of my brother. The platform which he drew up was fully pervaded with the principles of abolition. It is simply amazing how such men as those missionaries are known to have been, were induced to sign it, for that Goodwater platform did not consist with what they had previously held. But no sooner did this platform, with Mr. Wood's comments, appear in the New York Observer, than the missionaries immediately forwarded to the Secretaries and committee their protest against the whole report. In October, 1855, the Board meets at Utica, jST. Y. The Senior Secretary, Dr. Anderson, was still in India. The other two Secretaries were both present. There is good reason to believe they had the missionaries' protest in their pocket. Yet the whole case before the Board is settled on the basis of the Goodwater platform, with no allusion to the protest. The missionaries are so aggrieved when these tidings reach them that they, or some of them, send on their resignation. J^o sooner had the Senior Sec- retary returned than he showed himself anxious to have the missionaries withdraw their resignation. The com- mittee, accordingly, propose this to the missionaries. These consent, on condition that the Treat letter and all the previous legislation of the Board about slavery, be considered as withdrawn, and the missionaries be allowed to go on in their work, "according to the instructions of our Lord and his apostles." The proposition of the mis- sionaries was not accepted ; yet, with these terms as de- manded by the missionaries lying before them, the com- mittee voted, for the ensuing year, the usual annual ap- propriation for the Choctaw mission, and continued to do the same until the year 1859. At the annual meeting in 1856, which occurred at New- ark, the Board, now guided by the Senior Secretary, seeks to set itself right by renewing the Brooklyn plat- form, where it was declared that the Board has no ecclesi- astical power and no control over the missionary churches, and remitting to the missionaries and their churches all questions of internal discipline as belonging rightfully to them alone. In 1857 the Board express themselves in the strongest 152 MY LIFE AND TIMES. terms as to the high character and good conduct of the Choctaw missionaries, and the Prudential Committee's report tells how their stations had received decisive marks of divine favor. This report closes with the expression of the hope "that he who keepeth covenant and sheweth mercy will not forsake this interesting people." Where is, meanwhile, the resignation of the missionaries 'i It is sleeping and taking its rest. The committee's conscience will not, at this time, suffer them to accept it ; they have before them the fear of the Covenant-Keeper, who has not forsaken and will not forsake the poor Choctaw churches. On the other hand^ however, the fear of the abolitionists is also before the committee's eyes, and they dare not refuse to accept this resignation. It must rest for awhile, till the committee can see the path of duty and of safety more plain and clear before their eyes. But in the annual meeting, September, 1858, the Board finds its way out of the difficulty by the aid of Dr. Leo- nard Bacon, of Connecticut. He is appointed chairman of the sub-committee, on that part of the Board's annual report which relates to the Choctaw missionaries. In his report he speaks of certain religious bodies in the States nearest the Choctaws, among whom there has been a "lamentable defection from some of the first and most elementary ideas of Christian morality, insomuch that Christianity has been represented as the warrant for a system of slavery which offends the moral sense of the Christian world, and Christ has thereby been represented as the Minister of Sin." The report also refers to the fact that "our brethren among the Choctaws are in ecclesiasti- cal connection with these religious bodies, and that from those States the leading Choctaws are deriving their no- tions of civilization and of government." The report concludes with the expression of a hope that the "Board might be relieved as early as possible from the unceasing embarrassments and perplexities connected with the mis- sions in the Indian Territory." This report was adopted unanimously. Thus the Board has at length been driven to the reso- lution of withdrawing its support from the Choctaw mis- sionaries and their churches, and that as soon as possible. WHAT FOLLOWED. 153 But how is this to be done ? With the prompt decision and bold, open, Christian frankness of men who believe what they say, namely, that these missionaries and churches are chargeable with a ''lamentable defection from some of the most elementary ideas of Christian morality," and so have made Christianity the warrant for the '"sum of all villainies," ''and Christ the Minister of Sin" ? Oh ! no. ISot so does the committee express itself, but another correspondence is to be opened with the mis- sionaries, and it is again Mr. Treat, who is to write to these abandoned sinners. I subjoin his letter, with the reply of the missionaries. Let the reader notice with care, not only the fraternal kindness expressed in this letter for the missionaries, but also the cordial and friendly senti- ments entertained for the corrupt Choctaw churches. Let him also notice the grounds on which the committee pro- pose to base the separation, viz., "To free themselves from embarrassment and their treasury from loss." Still fur- ther, let him notice the reference to the "political agita- tions which are likely to take place in coming years." The separation was to be effected in 1859, and the war of the States was to begin in 1861. Letter of Mr. Secretary Treat. Missionary House, Boston, October 5, 1858. To THE Choctaw Mission. Deak Brethren: The proceedings of the board at its recent meeting are already in your hands. You will have read with special attention the report of the committee on that part of the annual report which relates to your mission. This paper, you will remem- ber, has the following sentence, "It seems to your committee de- sirable that the board should be relieved, as early as possible, from the increasing embarrassments and perplexities connected with the missions in the Indian Territory." The Prudential Committee, con- curring in this opinion for various reasons, respectfully submit for your consideration, whether, in existing circumstances, it be not wise and expedient that your connection with us should be termi- nated. You will readily believe that this suggestion is made witli un- feigned regret. We have always felt a deep interest in your labors. For the churches which you have gathered, we entertain the most cordial and friendly sentiments. For yourselves we have a strong 154 MY LIFE AND TIMES. fraternal feeling. For the older brethren, especially, we must ever cherish the tenderest afl'ection. It is with emotions of sadness, therefore, that we contemplate a separation from you. We are not able, however, to call in question the facts on which the committee at Detroit founded their opinion. We find in our churches an increasing desire that the board may be freed from the embarrassments above referred to. By reason thereof, it is said, the donations to the treasury are less than they would other- wise be, to the manifest injury of our churches, on the one hand, and of our missions on the other. It is said, too, that the political agitations, which are likely to take place in coming years, must of necessity aggravate the evil. The report to which your attention is now called, refers to diffi- culties which you have encountered because of your present rela- tion. This consideration you will at once appreciate; the commit- tee have no occasion, therefore, to enlarge upon it. They will only add that these difficvilties will be likely to increase hereafter. But there is another obstacle to our future cooperation which tho report, already mentioned, did not notice. The Prudential Com- mittee question their ability to keep your ranks adequately filled. When tidings came to us a few days ago that our excellent friend and brother, Mr. Byington, was dangerously sick, an inquiry of painful intere.st arose, "Who can take his place?" We had no person ready to occupy such a post; and, in view of our past ex- perience, we could hardly expect to find one. The committee do not propose to raise any question as to the agreement of your opinions with those of the board. In any view of the case which they have been able to take, the result would be the same. The measure is proposed as one of Christian expediency; and it is on this ground that we present it for your consideration. We have said that this communication is made with unfeigned regret. But our sorrow is lessened by the hope that the interests of the people among whom you dwell will not suffer. We have thought it probable that you would come into connection with that missionarj'^ board under which two of your number formerly labored — a board which has your cordial sympathy and your entire confi- dence. Its missionaries are your "fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God" in a common field. This would facilitate a transfer of your relation. Ecclesiastically, you would make no change. Praying that the God of missions may keep you henceforth, and direct all your labors, so that the comfort and joy which you have hitherto received therein, shall be forgotten by reason of the more abundant coming of the Spirit of promise, I am. Very respectfully yours, in behalf of the Prudential Committee, S. B. Treat, Secretary of the A. B. C. F. 31. what followed. 155 Eeply of the Missionaries. Yakin Okchaya, Choctaw Nation, December 24, 1858. To TJiE Rev. S. B. Treat, Secretary of the A. B. G. F. M. Dear Brother: We have received your kind letter in behalf of the Prudential Committee, under date of October 15th. We cor- dially reciprocate to yourself and the committee the fraternal feel- ings which you have expressed towards us. You refer us to the report in relation to our mission adopted by the board at Detroit, and especially to the following sentence, "It seems to your committee desirable that the board should be relieved, as early as possible, from the unceasing embarrassments and per- plexities connected with the missions in the Indian Territory." And you add, "The Prudential Committee, concurring in this opinion for various reasons, respectfully submit for your consideration, whether, in existing circumstances, it be not wise and expedient that your connection with us should be terminated." You do not mention the source of these "embarrassments and per- plexities"; but we presume they arise from our relation to slavery. Such have been the peace and quiet amongst us on this subject for the past two years, that we fondly hoped the agitation had ceased, not to be renewed in such a way as seriously to affect us. Hence the action of the board at Detroit took us by surprise. We have taken into prayerful consideration the question sub- mitted to us by the Priidential Committee. We have sought for light on this subject. As for ourselves, through the favor of a kind providence, we see nothing in our present circumstances requiring a separation. Our position and course in reference to slavery are defined in our letter from Lenox, dated September 6, 1856. These, so far as they are known to our people, meet with their "cordial approbation"; we are therefore going forward without disturbance in our appropriate work as missionaries. Whether circumstances may not hereafter arise which will render a separation necessary, we are, of course, unable to say; but we apprehend no such diffi- culty from the Choctaw people, or from others in this region. In regard to our course, above mentioned, we would remark that it is the same as has been uniformly preached by the mission from its commencement more than forty years ago. It had the full ap- probation of the secretaries and the Prudential Committee for more than five and twenty years, and was finally approved with perfect unanimity by the board at Brooklyn in 1845. However great may have been our shortcomings in duty, we believe this our course to be right and scriptural ; and we cannot believe that it is unwise and inexpedient for the board to sustain us in what is scriptural and right. 156 MY LIFE AND TIMES. In your letter you say, "We have thought it probable you would come into connection with that missionary board under which two of your number formerly labored." That board, as you have said, "has our cordial sympathy and entire confidence." But that board is the organ of the religious bodies in the adjoining States, "with which we are in ecclesiastical relations"; and the various religious bodies in these States are charged, in the report adopted by the board at Detroit, with "a lamentable defection from some of the first and most elementary ideas of Christian morality." Is not this an implied censure upon us? If not, is there not an inconsistency in the above suggestion of the Prudential Committee? We have no assurance that, under these circumstances, that board would con- sent to a transfer of the mission to their care. We therefore refer the question back to the Prudential Commit- tee, to be disposed of as they shall see best. We regret that either the board or the churches should sustain injury on our account. We, however, do not think that, in our labors as missionaries, we have done that which, by the gosj^el standard, can be regarded as just cause of offence. Be assured that it is not a light matter with us to differ with the Prudential Committee and the board as respects the question which you have submitted to us. In our opinion, important principles are involved. We trust and pray that tlie great Head of the church may give wisdom from above, that wisdom which is profitable to direct. Most respectfully yours, in behalf of the Choctaw Mission, C. Kingsbury, Chairman. C. C. CoPELAND, Clerk. The committee, now at lengtli, despair of either forcing or persuading the missionaries in any respect to change their ground, either as to their work among the Choctaws, or as to their relation to the Board. They will stand just where they have stood for forty years, and the changes shall all be on the part of their friends in Boston. So the Prudential Committee, beat out by the firmness and pru- dence of these simple-hearted and clear-headed brethren in the wilderness, resolve, in obedience to the advice of the Board in 1858, to discontinue the Choctaw mission. Of course, Mr. Treat again appears upon the stage. He it is who must frame a reply to that remarkable docu- ment of C. Kingsbury, Chairman. It is not necessary for me to copy any part of that letter. My readers know pretty well what reply he will attempt to make. When WHAT FOLLOWED. 157 the Board meets in Philadelpiiia in 1859, it confirms the act of the committee, and so the affair ends. It certainly was, for me, a kind providence which, in 1846, while it relieved the Board of its connection with a slaveholding missionary, relieved me from my connection with a mis- sionary board, which, from the very time of my release, was in hot water do'svn to 1859. Some reader of this chapter may be disposed to ask why was my course so different from that of the Choctaw missionaries. The Prudential Committee proposed to them a dissolution of their connection with the Board. The missionaries refer back the question to the Pruden- tial Committee for them to do about it whatever they thought proper ; but I decided myself to withdraw from the Board without putting the responsibility on the com- mittee. The difference in the two cases is manifest. In the one case, a missionary, who happened to be a slave- n holder, is privately informed by the Secretary that his -• continued connection with the Board will bring great trouble on them. The way is made open for him to retire, '^' if he so choose. The question is simply between the Sec- retary and him. There has been no public notice taken of his being connected with the Board. There seems also to have been a lull in the abolitionists' assault upon the Board. If the missionary chooses to retire, he does not commit himself to a public acceptance or adhesion to any false principles in morals, while possibly he may save the Board from any fresh assault about slavery ; so he sends in his resignation. The other case comes on after a dozen years subsequent to this resignation, when the American Board has been led, or driven, step by step, to take the extreme position that slavery is always and everywhere sinful, and that their Choctaw missionaries are involved in the guilt of it. Then they propose to these missionaries to acknowledge that on this ground they think it desirable and necessary that their connection with the Board should cease. The missionaries refuse to fall into the snare. They will not assent to the fanatical and unscriptural principles pub- licly set forth. They throw back on the Prudential Com- mittee the necessity of doing just as they think right in 158 MY LIFE AND TIMES. the premises. It has raised the issue, let it take the re- sponsibility before the Christian public of cutting them off as unworthy of support; and so in 1859 they are cut off.* In this account of what befell the American Board from 1840 to 1859, we see certain leaders in New Eng- land requiring it to accept their views of slavery and slaveholding. But the Board looks at these questions with different eyes. There followed, as is well known, severe and increasingly severe condemnation of the Board's opinions. Then, because the Board will not yield to the judgment of these leaders, public opinion is stirred up against it, and all Christian people are called on to with- hold from it their support. The result is, as everybody knows, that the resources of the Board are very much crippled. Those who have effected this result are con- scientiously religious people, but the consequences are very cruel. They extend to all the Board's missions throughout the world. They involve missionaries and their wives and children who never had anything to do with the '"sin of slavery." It is starvation for these ; it is also starvation to the heathen. The Bread of Life is to be withheld. So far as this Board is concerned, no more missionaries to be sent forth ! 'No more Christian schools to be established ! No more translations of the Bible ! No more multiplication of copies of the Word ! All these consequences from difference of opinions ! The Board shall believe what we believe, or we will ruin its business, and, so far as it is concerned, leave the missionaries and heathen to perish together. Now, I have an object-lesson to set before those, and the like of those, who, merely for opinion's sake, had thus destroyed almost one-half the resources and power of a magnificent benevolent society in the prosecution of its work. When American missionaries to the Armenians began to circulate the Scriptures among these people in their * In Vol. XII., pp. 736, 783 of the Southern Presbyterian Revieio I published a more full critique of the course of the American Board with its Choctaw missionaries. WHAT FOLLOWED. 159 modern tongue, earnest souls repaired to them for fuller instruction in the gospel. Soon they began to see that the creed of their church and its ceremonies were unscrip- tural and idolatrous. They could not any more worship the Virgin Mary nor the other saints. They would no longer confess their sins to a priest, but only to God, nor would they worship the holy cross, nor relics, nor pictures, and they denied the infallibility of the church, believing that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and prac- tice. The Armenian patriarch and priest were greatly exasperated as these ideas began to prevail amongst their people. Their reproofs and warnings not availing any- thing, they soon resorted to persecution. Some of those who received these new opinions were first imprisoned, and then sent into cruel banishment to far distant places. Some suffered the bastinado, or beating with rods on the naked feet, in some cases the patriarch and priest in- flicting this punishment with their own hands. iSTot a few who had shops had their goods thrown into the streets and the doors locked against them. Sometimes men were forcibly turned out of their own houses into the street, and their wives and children with them. Worse than all, the fearful anathema was publicly pronounced against them, forbidding all men either to buy or sell, give any- thing to these guilty parties, or even speak to them ; so they were driven out, they and their families, to starve. ]^ow, no other crimes were charged against these per- sons but that they did not believe what their church believes. They were all honest, industrious, good citi- zens, and subjects of the Porte. But, finding out that the Scriptures do not teach the creed of the Armenian Church, they no longer received it. The whole trouble was a matter of opinions. Look now at this picture, and then at the foregoing one. Are they not, to a large extent, identical ? The abolition- ists of Kew England thought slaveholding a sin. The American Board did not agree with them, and resort is had to violent measures to compel their acceptance of the abolitionist creed. Just so the Armenian ecclesiastics held it a sin for their people not to believe what their church taught, and they resort to violent measures to 160 MY LIFE AND TIMES. compel submission. Freedom of opinion and belief is the question in both places. In l)oth eases, arguments prove inefficient, and force is cruelly employed. Still further, the date of both these affairs is one and the same. It was in 1845 that the American Board first succumbed to the rising power of abolitionism so far as to speak out against the wickedness of slavery, and to write to the Choctaw missionaries that they should train their church members to the duty of emancipating their slaves. But in 1847 the Board were made to feel that the missionaries had not given proper heed to the instruction about eman- cipation given them in 1845 ; and so, two decidedly aboli- tionist secretaries having been elected this year, one of these is sent out to enforce these instructions to the mis- sionaries, and thus 1845, 1846 and 1847 become the period when abolitionism gains absolute sway over the American Board. Just so in the case of the Armenian persecutors — it was early in 1845 that Matteos Patriarch resolved on inore vigorous measures of persecution than had ever been employed ; so all through 1846 he prac- tised the greatest cruelties against the poor Armenians, until, through the influence of the British ambassador, an end was put to it in 1847. Looking back from this year (1897) upon the occur- rences between 1846 and 1859, which I have here related, it is a humiliating spectacle to behold a great Christian institution like the A. B. C. F. M. forced, by fanatical principles, to take so unchristian a position. But is it not a very remarkable, and a still more humil- iating spectacle, to look back and observe how, m almost the very next year, these same fanatical ideas tore apart these great Christian States and people, and forced them into a cruel fratricidal war ? Some say the South went to war for slavery. It is more true that the l^orth went to war against slavery. What was that influence which so aroused the ISTorth- ern States against slavery, and made them so clamorous for its abolition? Was it Christianity? Christianity, both in the days of the apostles and for many long cen- turies afterwards, did never so raise her voice. Chris- tianity operated, and still always operates, in a much profounder, far gentler, and more wholesome manner. WHAT FOLLOWED. 161 What lio'ht does the past history of Christianity shed upon this question ? Adam Smith, Hallam, and Macaulay also, in his History of England^ all speak of the abolition of slavery in Europe as having been very silently, and in its progress imperceptibly, effected, neither by legislative regulation nor physical force. What share Christianity had in effecting this abolition has been much disputed. Guizot, Muratori, Millar, Sismondi, and the Pictorial His- torian of England, allow her very little influence. On the other hand, Robertson, the historian of Charles V., Biot, an elaborate French author, who got a gold medal from the French Academy of Moral and Polemical Science for his work De V AhoUtion de VEsclavageAncien en Occi- dent, and the Rev. Churchill Babington, of St. John's College, Cambridge, who got the Hulsean prize for the year 1845, for an essay on the same subject — all these and others ascribe the greatest influence to Christianity as the only power which has lasted long enough, or been uni- versal enough, or unmixed and constant enough, to accom- plish such a task. But it is curious, indeed, as a question of historical philosophy, to see how exceedingly gradual was the pro- cess by which Christianity operated in the abolition of slavery. ISTot only Guizot, on the one side, declares that "slavery subsisted a long time in the bosom of Christian society without any great horror or irritation being ex- pressed against it," but Biot, on the other side, tells us that no "Christian writers of the first three centuries speak of the abolition of slavery as a consequence of Christianity." And Babington, after quoting many passages from Basil, Chrysostom, Jerome and other early fathers, remarks, "!N^ot one of these writers even hints that slavery is im- proper or unlawful." This same writer also refers to the fact that "Christianity has, for eighteen centuries, been operating upon European servitude." He also remarks, "Christianity has been constantly producing such an effect upon society that Avhen one thousand years had passed away, strict personal slavery had, in most parts of Europe, begun to disappear." * * See article on the "Christian Doctrine of Human Rights and Slavery," which I published in March, 1849, in the Southern Pres- byterian Rcvieiip (Vol. II., pp. 582-583). 162 MY LIFE AND TIMES. Now, it is true, and will forever remain true, that our Southern slavery was just a grand civilizing and Chris- tianizing school, providentially prepared to train thou- sands of negro slaves, brought hither from Africa by other people against our protest, some two hundred years ago. Never was any statement more absurdly false than that slavery degraded the negroes of the South from a higher to a lower position. The truth is, that all the good there ever was arising out of the presence of these people in this country was due to the fact that, coming hither as slaves, they were permitted to remain a long time at the school of slavery, to receive there a most valuable educa- tion. All this is true, and the Southern people and their children's children owe it to themselves and to their fore- fathers, to maintain forever these truths against all oppo- nents. The negroes were brought to us as naked savages ; many of them, perhaps most of them, had been slaves in their own country ; of the rest, some had been cannibals. They were just the same sort of people with which mis- sionaries to Africa now make us familiar in their letters. Whenever necessary, as in the case of cannibals and other ferocious negroes, the discipline of the school which slavery kept was severe. They had to be subjugated by their masters, or their presence would have been intoler- able. But, for the most part, these poor Africans, two hundred years ago, were, as they are now, as reported by missionaries, a gentle, docile people. It followed that the discipline of the school had no need to be otherwise than kind and gentle. Accordingly, do^vn to the period of emancipation, the relation betwixt master and slave in these Southern States was, on both sides, generally a kindly one. This no one can deny who was acquainted with the system. There w^ere cruel masters, as there were cruel fathers and cruel husbands. To speak of no higher motives which every slaveholder warmly cherished (or else he incurred inevitably shame and dishonor from his neighbors), the master knew that his slave was worth and cost money. The master of a horse that has cost him much will not treat him cruelly unless more of a brute than the very horse. How could the master of a slave so far forget his own interest as to be cruel to his slave unless WHAT FOLLOWED. 163 he was a brute himself ? In the great and good school of slavery, then, our slaves were receiving the most needful and valuable education for this life, and very many of them for the life to come. The two races were steadily and constantly marching onwards and upwards together. Hence, when emancipation was suddenly forced upon us, it found a good many pupils in the school of slavery who were ready to be gi-aduated, while it found all of them considerably educated. One hundred years more of the school of slavery might have fitted them all for gradua- tion. History tells us that European Christianity took eighteen centuries to turn slaves into free men. ^jNTorth- ern statesmanship gave us the palm. Its decree was that our school of slavery, in these Southern States, had re- quired only two hundred years to fit naked African sav- ages for the American ballot, and to be the statesmen and the senators, and, if need be, the presidents of this great republic. CHAPTER VII. Five Years" Work as a Missionary to the Negroes IN Charleston". 1847-1851. HAVII^G thus been prevented from returning to my Armenian work, my resolution was at length taken to devote myself to the religious instruction of the negroes in Charleston. But what I projDosed to begin appeared to very many of the citizens of Charleston a dangerous project. The idea of building a church where negroes were to assemble for worship, separate from the whites, even though the minister was to be a white man, and the Sunday-school teachers all white gentlemen and ladies, was not only novel, but, to many persons, alarming. And yet the religious instruction of the eight thousand colored communicants was, by far the larger part of it, actually carried on sep- arately from the whites, and, what was more, the real teachers were colored men. In the Methodist churches the whole body of the negroes, say five thousand in num- ber, were divided into classes, and the leaders of these classes were all negroes. The same system was, more or less, fully carried out in all the other churches. The white pastors could not have much oversight of all these classes, or even of all these class-leaders. What was in their power these white ministers performed, but,necessarily,it amounted to but little. I proposed to make a small be- ginning of a better plan, considering the interest both of black people and of white ones. One argument which I used against the prevailing system was that it made no adequate provision for seating even eight thousand com- municants. The galleries of the white churches could not contain more than one-fourth of their number, so that the idea of adequate oversight of the colored portion of their flocks, by the white pastors, was really absurd. So there FIVE years' work AMONG THE NEGROES. 165 was a call for the beginning of a better system. Yet it was insisted by my opponents that there was adequate room, and my friend, Dr. Whitefoord Smith, one of the Methodist pastors, and a most eloquent and popular and worthy one, actually took me with him to measure one of their galleries, and convince me of my error. But I think the actual measurement rather convinced him that he was wrong. But the real ground of the opposition which I encoun- tered on the part of many in the Charleston community, had a history which I have already given, and to which I must now again allude. Twenty-five years previously a plot had been discovered among the negroes for a murder- ous insurrection against the white people. Many negroes were arrested and tried, but most of them being found in- nocent, were released, yet some thirty-five or forty of them were executed. Of these, I myself, when a boy eleven years old, saw twenty-two hanged on one gallows. A very profound impression was made by these occur- rences upon both the white and black population of the city. Unfortunately, whether justly or not, a separate col- ored church, which had existed some years, with a most excellent negro man for its minister, was accused of some complicity in the plot. The storm that arose wrecked the church. He moved to Philadelphia, and he became sub- sequently a bishop in some negro denomination, and the members of his Charleston church and congregation were all glad to house themselves from the tempest in the col- ored membership of the different white churches. The consequence of all these events was that the idea of a separate church for negroes, which was the plan proposed, could not be thought of by hundreds of people in Charles- ton without horror. But there were many intelligent, sober-minded. Christian men and women who saw noth- ing in my plan but what promised to be useful in the highest degree, and they gave me their earnest support. Dr. Smyth, pastor of the Second church, seconded me very earnestly; so did all my brothers, and the four of them agreed to supply my support. My father also gave me his approbation and countenance. Many leading members of the Second church strongly favored what I 166 MY LIFE AND TIMES. proposed, after hearing a discourse wherein I publicly set forth mj views and desires. Charleston Presbytery also declared its approval of my plan. The sermon al- luded to was preached on the 9th of May, 1847, and was afterwards published, with an appendix containing- the resolutions that were offered by the Hon. Francis H. El- more and adopted by the congregation. The text of the sermon was, ''The poor have the gospel preached to them." In opening his discourse, the preacher referred to his hav- ing been a missionary for over twelve years to the Arme- nians, in Smyrna, Constantinople and Asia Minor, and to his transfer now being effected to a domestic mission- ary work in this city. Various considerations had oper- ated to induce his consent to this transfer. One was that the impaired condition of his eyesight unfitted him for further labors as a translator in that arid climate and under that brilliant sky. Another was that, when he went forth, it was with the sympathy and support of the Pres- byterian Church, and of the Southern churches in partic- ular ; but this s;\^npathy and support, naturally of great value to him, had long been withdrawn, and he had felt himself cut off and isolated. Strong and agitating influ- ences meanwhile had been at work, drawing him centre- wards, and leading him to feel that it was time for him to cast in his lot with his own people. Still another was the natural obligation which he felt, and had always felt, to do something for the religious instruction of the igno- rant colored people of his native city, Charleston. The points discussed in the sermon were — I. The inquiry who, expressly and particularly, are the poor of the city of Charleston; II. The fact that the gospel is not adequately preached to them ; and III. The obligation and expediency of making a fuller provision for their spiritual wants. The inquiry, "Who are our poor ?" is answered in the following terms : "The poor of this city are easily dis- tinguishable. They are a class separated from ourselves by their color, their position in society, their relation to our families, their national origin, and their moral, intel- lectual and physical condition. J^owhere are the poor FIVE YEAKS" WORK AMOIS^G THE NEGROES. 167 more distinctly marked out than our poor ; and yet, strange to say, nowhere are the j^oor so closely and inti- mately connected with the higher classes as are our poor with us. They belong to us. We also belong to them. They are divided out among us and mingled up with us, and we with them in a thousand ways. They live with us, eating from the same store-houses, drinking from the same fountains, dwelling in the same enclosures, forming parts of the same families. Our mothers confide us, when infants, to their arms, and sometimes to the very milk of their breasts. Their children are, to some extent, unavoidably the playmates of our childhood — grow up with us under the same roof — sometimes pass through all the changes of life with us, and then, either they stand weeping by our bedside, or else we drop a tributary tear by theirs, when death comes to close the long connection and to separate the good master and his good servant. "Such, my friends, are those whom we consider the poor of this city. There they are — behold them. See them all around you, in these streets, in all these dwellings ; a race distinct from us, yet closely united to us ; brought in God's mysterious providence from a foreign land, and placed under our care, and made members of our house- holds. They fill the humblest places of our state of so- ciety ; they serve us ; they give us their strength, yet they are not more truly ours than we are truly theirs. They are our poor — our poor brethren; children of our God and Father ; dear to our Saviour ; to the like of whom he preached ; for the like of whom he died, and to the least of whom every act of Christian compassion and kindness which we show he will consider as shown also to him- self." In the second place, the inadequacy of preaching amongst us for the poor was conclusively proved by ap- pealing to facts. The inadequacy of the provisions made consisted chiefly in two things^ first, a want of sufficient church accommodations, and, second, a want of suitable instruction — instruction adapted to the condition and capacity of the negro. On this point it will not be neces- sary to quote from the sermon, as the statements pre- viously made in this chapter are sufficient. 168 MY LIFE AND TIMES. In the third place, the obligation and expediency of preaching the gospel to the poor was enforced by such con- siderations as these: God has committed the gospel to us as Christians, that we may preach it to all men, including the poor ; the grand distinction of the gospel is that it is designed especially for the j)oor, the destitute, the miser- able and wretched, the ignorant and the perishing; the inestimable value of these classes, as immortal beings; the faithful preaching of the gospel to our poor will be followed by great advantages to our own children, and, therefore, it is our bounden duty to give them the gospel. In the very first of the thirty-six volumes of the South- ern Presbyterian Beview, which had, just about this time, begun to be published, there appeared (Vol. II., p. 137) from Dr. Thornwell's pen a review of this sermon. He expressed his deliberate judgment on various grounds, stated by him, that the plan of separate congrega- tions is the only j)lan which promises any adequate or efficient provision for the religious instruction of our slaves. They must not forsake the assembling of them- selves together; they must attend upon the ministry of the gospel. But the duty of public worship cannot be discharged by them, nor the advantages of public instruc- tion received, as long as they are doomed to scanty and contracted sections of our church edifices, and compelled to listen to ministrations which presuppose, for the most part, a preliminary knowledge which they do not and cannot possess. The same gospel must be differently dis- pensed, in order to have its full measure of success upon men so diverse in capacities and attainments as the two races amongst us. '^ There is another point of view," said Dr. Thornwell, "in which the expediency of giving them preachers pe- culiarly devoted to themselves may be strikingly ex- hibited. If ive do not furnish them with men qualified to teach them, they will provide themselves wnth others, who will pander to their tastes, and develop the religious ele- ment of their nature m forms, it may be, incompatible with their ovni improvement, and the interests of their masters. ISio human laws and no human vigilance can FIVE YEAES" WOEK AMONG THE NEGEOES. 169 prevent them from assembling for the purpose of worship. Man is essentially a religions creature, and religion is essentially a social quality. As in the days of the Empire, neither imperial laws nor imperial cruelty could put an effectual interdict upon the occasional and solemn convo- cations of the primitive Christians, so it will be with the negroes amongst us. They must gratify the religious yearnings of their souls ; and to attempt to restrain them in the exercise of what they feel to be a high, holy and imperative duty, will appear to them as 'tyranny from policy, which will fully justify rebellion from principle.' Gratuitous abridgments of the liberty of worship, arm the strongest feelings of their nature against the authority of their master. Our own security is best consulted, not by violent resistance to any original impulse of the heart, not by tempting to extirpate or destroy it, but by giving it a wise direction and turning it into safe and salutary channels. Separate congregations, therefore, they luill have. If our laws and the public sentiment of the com- munity tolerate them, they will be open, public, responsi- ble. If our laws prohibit them, they will be secret, fanat- ical, dangerous. Teachers they will have. If we supply them, they will be teachers indeed, instructing them in the mysteries of heaven, and conducting them in the paths of holiness, and obedience, and peace. If they are com- pelled surreptitiously to supply themselves, they will heap to themselves teachers after their o\vn lusts, who will give them fanaticism for piety, excitement for devotion, and enthusiasm for faith. Is it not safer to gratify the relig- ious impulses of their nature by an adequate provision on our part, which will at once promote their improvement and league their purest and noblest affections on the side of their masters 'i To give them the means of worship- ping God, to give them preachers who shall manifest an earnest and anxious solicitude for the salvation of their souls ; to give them houses in which they can meet for prayer and praise and the word of exhortation ; to dis- play the same care for their eternal and spiritual interests which we are accustomed to cherish for their health, food and raiment, would be an exhibition of Christian sym- pathy, on our part, which could not fail to reach the 170 MY LIFE AND TIMES. hearts of a race proverbially grateful, and sweeten the intercourse betwixt the master and his slave." It was ordered, in the providence of God, that very soon after this Presbyterian movement, a very similar, but entirely independent one, was commenced in the Epis- copal Church. The Diocesan Convention of South Car- olina, meeting in St. Michael's church, appointed the Kev. Paul Trapier to gather a congregation of negroes, to be under his individual pastoral instruction and care, with some white assistance. I happened to be present, as a spectator, in the gallery of the church, when the conven- tion took up this matter, and I was greatly cheered by the hearty manner in which that eminent body dealt with this subject. My impression is that not a single voice was raised in opposition. Many of the lay members of that body were large slaveholders themselves. There were also quite a number of other lay members of the Episcopal Church who were quite wide awake to the duty of giving sound religious instruction to our negroes. I recall the names of two young men, Russell Middleton, afterwards President of Charleston College, and Henry D. Lesesne, then a student in the law office of James L. Petigru, who afterwards was well kno^nl as Chancellor Lesesne. These young gentlemen were full of zeal on the subject of the white man's duty of directly interesting his negro slave in religion. Edward McCrady, Esq., and C. G. Memminger, Esq., both eminent lawyers of the Episcopal Church, were also very hearty in their appro- bation of this work. The Rev. Mr. Trapier, at the request of the committee appointed by the Diocesan Convention, preached a ser- mon, on Sundays in July, in several of the Protestant Episcopal churches, and this sermon was published widely in the community. His text was taken from Colossians iv. 1, "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." The preacher then urges the duty of the relig- ious training of our servants by the example of Abra- ham ; by precepts, both from the Old and the ISTew Testa- ments ; by an appeal to humanity, and a sense of "such favors as the humblest may confer upon the loftiest." FIVE years" work AMONG THE NEGROES. 171 He then proceeds to set forth the real state of the case. "There are, according to the census of 1810, about twenty thousand slaves in our city and its suburbs, and not more than one thousand of these are in any way connected with our six Episcopal churches ; nor in all the other places of worship, and of all denominations, it is estimated that more than five thousand can be accommodated. This leaves an appalling residue of fourteen thousand. Where are they ? And what is becoming of them ? They are human beings, with thoughts and feelings of their own. Their hearts are, in common with those of all the rest of mankind, prone to sin and averse from God and holiness. Do you imagine that, left to themselves, they will not go on from bad to worse, catching and communicating con- tagion by association ? Or, do you fancy that they are to be kept from doing so by the strong arm of domestic dis- cipline, or detected and punished by the vigilance of mu- nicipal agency ? N^ay, brethren ! it is notorious that such expedients, however useful and indispensable, do not, and cannot, effect a cure of this or any other moral disease ; nor even arrest its progress ; nor reach the hiding-places of its real origin. For these are in the heart ; and it is because our servants are not Christians that so many of them are given to vices and guilty of offences ruinous to themselves, hurtful to their fellows, injurious to us, and pestilential to our whole community. , . . Suffer me, nevertheless, to inquire of you again. Are you doing what you ought and may for their souls ? . . . For the four- teen thousand not connected efficiently with any denomi- nation of Christians, ... as to any influence upon them for spiritual good, I ask again. Where are they ? 'Sitting in darkness and the shadow of death,' 'without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.' (Ephesians ii. 12.) The heathen in our midst, as they have been truly named, nay, in one respect, worse off than heathen elsewhere — these at our doors are exposed to the evils of civilization, and its vices are corrupting them ; while of its moral benefits scarcely a knowledge have they, unless by the contrast of their own deprivation and consequent spiritual wretched- ness." 172 MY LIFE AND TIMES. Mr. Trapier, in the second place, then alludes to "the action of the late convention by which a committee was appointed, not to consider and report, but to make ar- rangements for establishing and keeping up the congre- gation proposed." He states also that "our every step hitherto has been under the tacit sanction and with the approval, expressed or implied, by those who are over us in church and State." . . . "The convention, by its vote electing the committee, has lent its countenance; and our bishop, who was not present then, has since sig- nified to us, in writing, his good wishes, and bidden us Godspeed." In the third place, Mr. Trapier again recurs to the question, "What shall we do for our servants V and he proceeds to set forth the plan of his committee which in every essential particular is the same proposed by the Presbyterians. But while the Episcopal Church seemed to be quite united in approving separate religious worship and public instruction for the negroes, to be directly afforded them by a white minister and other white teachers, it soon be- gan to be clear that I would meet with opposition from Presbyterians. A prominent lawyer of Charleston was afterwards judge of the United States District Court, and subsequently Governor of the State of South Carolina during the war, assailed me by name in the Charleston Mercury, then the leading political paper of South Caro- lina. He was an old school-mate of mine in our boyish days. He signed himself "Many Citizens," and por- trayed in dark colors the dangerous character of my move- ment. This gentleman was a member of the First Pres- byterian church, commonly called the Scotch Church, and it was well understood generally that the pastor of that church earnestly supported him. "Many Citizens" wrote two articles in the Mercury before I felt called on to reply. Then a third communication from him ap- peared. My second followed immediately, and the discus- sion was closed by the editor. It had excited very great interest. "Many Citizens" sought to arouse the fears of a community which had not forgotten the events of 1822 ; but he could not prevail against the calm and sober argu- FIVE YEAES"* WORK AMONG THE NEGROES. 173 ments that were brought forward on the other side. This controversy is now out of date, and I need not repeat here any of its details. By reason of this controversy, the Presbyterian move- ment was somewhat retarded ; but the Episcopalians had moved quietly on, and had begun the erection of their church building. While our walls were just coming out of the ground theirs had got to be some ten feet high, when a mob of excited people assembled one night and were about to pull them all down. Several influential citizens, jealous for the honor of their city, appeared in time to persuade the multitude to desist, promising that they would call a public meeting to test the sense of the community on the question. This meeting appointed a committee of fifty, of which Daniel Ravenel, Sr., was the cliairman, to inquire into the matter. This committee corresponded with intelligent gentlemen all over the South, to collect information which should lead the city to a wise decision. Then another public meeting was called, and the City Hall was filled with an eager throng of leading men. The report of the committee of fifty was read, decidedly favoring the movement as both wise and good. The opj)osition was heard, first, through their leader. I cannot recall his name, but my recollection is that he was no citizen of Charleston, a comparative stranger amongst us, and a man of not very good charac- ter. Then the Hon. Francis H. Elmore, who had been elected to fill out the unexpired term in the United States Senate, of the lamented Calhoun, moved the adoption of the report in a very eloquent speech. James L. Peti- gru, then, in many respects, the topmost citizen of Charleston, rose to second it. Mr. Elmore was a member of the congregation of the Second Presbyterian church, and his wife was a professing member. He had favored my project strongly from the very beginning, and I had supposed, of course, he would speak; but the speech of Mr. Petigru had not been counted on. It was such a speech as is not often heard. I wish I could recall and report it. The assembly was thrilled as this great citizen poured forth his feelings. But when he came to speak on the "liberty of teaching" what was true and good to 174 MY LIFE AND TIMES. all men, his big heart swelled with emotion, and so did those of his hearers. All I remember is "the liberty of teaching ! why, sirs, that was what brought many of our fathers here." Petigru was a Huguenot. The assem- bly understood his allusion. ISTot many words were required to be added. The question was settled in Charleston for all time. The nightmare, which had op- pressed the mind and heart of the city for twenty-five years, vanished. My first place for preaching to the negroes was in the basement of the lecture-room of the Second Presbyterian church, in Society street. We had a Sunday-school of white teachers, male and female, and a large number of negro children attended, with some adults, and I had a good congregation, after the Sunday-school of grown peo- ple, to hear my sermon. I also had prayer-meetings at different places, and I had a class of male church mem- bers for special instruction. The church in Anson street was duly finished and occupied, after being fully paid for and solemnly dedicated, with a large congregation of the foremost citizens of Charleston being present. Dr. Thornwell prepared and delivered a special sermon, at my request, suitable to the occasion. It was afterwards published, and distributed widely. The building was calculated to hold several hundred people, with seats for a few whites ; the negroes sat in front of the preacher from the pulpit to the door, and the seats of the white people were on the right and left side of it, with separate entrances for each class. Rev. Mr. Trapier's church was built somewhere in Beaufain street, and both these efforts were successfully carried on. In my case, after five years' labor, the condition of my eyes compelled me to retire, and Dr. Girardeau became my successor. Under his faithful and earnest preaching many believers were added to the church. His labors were so much blessed that the first church building in Anson street became too small for the congregation, and had to give place to the largest church edifice in Charleston. It was erected in Boundary or Calhoun street, very near Meeting street. This im- mense T3uilding, costing twenty-five thousand dollars, was all paid for by the white citizens of Charleston, as an ex- FIVE YEAKS' WOEK AMO?fG THE NEGROES. 175 pression of their interest in the religions welfare of the colored people. The negroes named it Zion. The lower story was devoted to the uses of the Sunday-school and session, and the meetings for public services were held in the wide area of the upper story. The main floor was occupied by negroes, for whom the preaching was chiefly designed ; but there were galleries on three sides facing the pulpit for the white people. Their preacher had a golden mouth, as well as Chrysostom. He was raised amongst the negroes of the low country, knew them well, loved them much, and was much loved by them, and felt from a child a desire to preach to them. His congrega- tion of blacks was generally not less than one thousand, while a good many white people were present in the gal- leries every Sunday afternoon. That colored congrega- tion needed no music from an organ. Their singing of God's praises was magniflcent, and suited well the earn- est preaching of the gospel by their minister. He con- tinued his labors in that pulpit till called to the army dur- ing the latter part of our four years' war, when he Avas taken prisoner, sent to Johnson's Island, where he preached to his brother ofiicers, and held a Bible-class for some who were ministers, whom I have heard speak of the lessons they learned there from his lips. I have no doubt that the influence of his apostlic instructions to thousands and thousands of negroes who frequented his ministry during those ten years in Zion church, had much to do with the quiet, peaceable and submissive behavior of the colored people in Charleston while the war went on, just as I am sure the same effect was produced among the slave population all over the South, by the sound religious instructions they had been receiving, publicly and pri- vately, for many years before the war. The period at which Dr. Girardeau suspended his labors among the negroes was one of great discouragement and depression in the whole Southern country. It was becoming more and more evident that the ISTorth was mak- ing war upon us, to a great extent, on account of the negro. The flower of our youth were in the army. They were being made a sacrifice to our slaves. The hearts of our people went out to our soldiers. The missionary loved 176 MY LIFE A:N"D times. liis negro flock ; but he was a wliite man, and he couhl not but sympathize strongly with his young countrymen who were pouring out their blood in the patriotic struggle. He took no counsel with me in deciding that it was time for him to give his services to our wounded and dying soldiers. But he gave me thanks afterwards, when I told him he was doing right. On his return, after the war, his white brethren, in their dire distress, stood in great need of consolation and instruction from him. They earnestly called for all his time and strength, but he could not bear to desert the negro. ISTot being able my- self to state precisely wdiat arrangements were finally reached, so that he might hearken, in part, to the call of his white brethren, and yet continue his work among the negroes, I addressed him in this month of February, 1897, some inquiries, and I here append his answ^er in his own W'Ords : My pastoral relation to the Zion church (colored and white) was never dissolved (formally) ; but circumstances made it impractica- ble for me to serve the colored flock in that relation, just after the war. To the Presbyterian congregations of Charleston I preached for awhile at their request, and with Dr. Smyth's consent, in the pulpit of the Second Presbyterian Church. When Dr. Smyth inti- mated his desire to return from Summerton, where he had been a refugee during the war, to his church in Charleston, I at once with- drew with the white part of the Zion church, and such of the colored members as worshipped with us in the Second Church, to the Glebe Street Church building, which we borrowed from that church organ- ization— which shortly afterwards united xoith the Zion Church under the style and title of the latter. The Glebe Street Church was absorbed into the Zion Church. It loas not a union of coordinates under a new name. Hence the name of the united church was, Zion Church worshipping in Glebe street. Your special point of inquiry is, how I came to be separated from the coloied flock in Calhoun street, to which I had continued to minister while preaching to the white charge in Glebe street. By what ecclesiastical action did it take place? By the action of the General Assembly in Columbus, Miss., in 1874. In the fall of 1873 the Sj'nod of South Carolina, meeting in Co- lumbia, had a warm discussion of the question of admitting negro members into our cliurcli — Mr. Baxter, of Newberry, the chief speaker against, and the writer in favor. The story is interesting, but too long for me to recite in writing. 1 never, from the begin- FIVE years" work AMONG THE NEGROES. 177 ning, was in favor of separating the two races, of cutting off — as I expressed it — the negro race from the white, like casting loose a tow-boat from a great steamship in the middle of a stormy ocean. But the reply was, the Constitution, the Constitution ! If we admit the negro, we must concede him all the rights of membership, official as well as others. Very well, said I, finally, have your way. I with- draw my opposition. Try the experiment. Experience may decide the matter. And then what? Why, the Synod of South Carolina de- cided to overture the Assembly in favor of organic separation be- tween whites and blacks in the church, and the establishment of an independent African Presbyterian church. In that way the subject came up before the Assembly of 1874. Further, the Synod of Mis- sissippi, led by Dr. B. M. Palmer, submitted a similar overture, elaborately drawn, and with the usual eloquence and power of the author. This strongly reinforced the South Carolina overture. The Committee of Bills and Overtures reported favorably to these over- tures, and the Assembly voted that way unanimously, excepting one vote — that of the writer. The issue was, retention of the colored people in our church or organic separation from them. I did not theoretically approve of separation, but, as the whole church was going that way, I practi- cally went with it, but under protest. Now, the circumstances are such that, like yourself, I favor an Independent African Presbyterian Church; and hence my course in regard to the case of Reuben James, lately before our Presbytery and the Assembly. Theoretically, I still think the policy of retention the better one; but practically, separation noiv seems a necessity. But I cannot write as I wish. I grow tired and sick. That Assembly effected an oi'ganic sei^aration between the two races ecclesiastically, so that the colored, if it desired to do so, could withdraw from any formal relation to the white. Acting upon this procedure of the General Assembly, I convened the colored con- gregation, explained the situation to them, and gave them the liberty, if they pleased, to set up for themselves. Most of the old people strenuously opposed the separation, but Young Africa was in favor of it. The majority favored the separation, and among them, I remember, he who had always striven to be in the matter of the singing aut Caesar aut nullus. That was how the breach oc- curred. The colored people voted for it, and I gave them the road. I would like to discuss this whole matter with you. It is very in- teresting to me. But much writing sickens me. Hence I cannot write you as fully as I would like to do. With sympathy and earnest prayer for you. Affectionately yours, Jno. L. Girardeau. 178 MY LIFE AND TIMES. I turn back now to give some account of the dedication of the chnrch in Anson street. The chnrch building in Anson street, which was erected for the special religious instruction of negroes separately, was dedicated on Sabbath evening, 26th day of May, 1850, Dr. Thornwell, at my request, preaching the sermon. The enterprise had encountered very serious difficulties. Some good men had their fears about it. Some bad men bitterly opposed it. The whole city had been excited. More than once in its history, there had been peculiar reasons for excitement and apprehension. MeauAvhile, the whole Southern country, placed under the ban of the civilized world, had been stung to madness by imjust re- proaches against our "cruelty and inhumanity" as slave- holders. Here was a church built by Christian slave- holders for the religious benefit of the slaves. It was felt to be suitable that, in opening this house for this specific use, they should set their views before the other Christian slaveholders of the South. It was possible that, in this way, we might stimulate their faithfulness and diligence in the discharge of the duties which spring from the rela- tion of masters and servants. It was also possible that we might contribute somewhat to the correction of those world-wide errors which prevailed as to the true character of slavery, as it existed amongst us. Accordingly, the congregation that assembled to take part in the dedication of the house to the worship of God by negroes, was com- posed exclusively of white people. It was a dedication by the masters of the slaves. It was an act of intelligent Christian citizens, whom the world was charging with the dreadful sin of slaveholding. Dr. Thornwell, therefore, took his text from Colossians iv. 1., "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven," and so, we may say, the subject of his sermon was the Christian doctrine of slavery. I make bold to say that the reader has never read a clearer, fairer, stronger, more satisfactory presen- tation of this subject. The preacher, after remarking that we had been "de- nounced with every epithet of vituperation and abuse, as conspirators against the dignity of man, traitors to our FIVE years' WOEK AMOjS^G THE NEGROES. 179 race, and rebels against God," and, after exhorting to '"maintain the moderation and dignity which become us," opened his discourse with the observation, "God has not permitted such a remarkable phenomenon as the unanim- ity of the civilized world in its execration of slavery to take place without design. This great battle with the abolitionists has not been fought in vain. The luuster of such immense forces, the fury of bitterness of the conflict, the disparity in resources of the parties in the war, and the conspicuousness — the unexampled conspicuousness of the event — have all been ordered for wise and benelicent results ; and when the smoke shall have rolled away, it will be seen that a real progress has been made in the practical solution of the problems which produced the collision." "What disasters," he continued, "we must pass through before the nations can be taught the lessons of providence, what horrors are to be experienced, no human sagacity can foresee. But that this world is now the theatre of an ex- traordinary conflict of great principles, that the founda- tions of society are about to be explored to their depths, and the sources of social and political prosperity laid bare; that the questions in dispute involve all that is dear and precious to man on earth, the most superficial observer cannot fail to perceive. Experiment after ex- periment may be made, disaster succeed disaster, in carrying out the principles of an atheistic philosophy, until the nations, wearied and heart-sickened with changes without improvement, shall open their eyes to the real causes of their calamities. God will vindicate the appointments of his providence ; and, if our institu- tions are indeed consistent with righteousness and truth, we can calmly afford to bide our time. If our principles are true, the world must come to them. It is not the nar- row question of abolitionism or of slavery, not simply whether we shall emancipate our negroes or not ; the real question is, the relations of man to society, of States to the individual, and of the individual to States, a question as broad as the interests of the human race. These are the mighty questions which are shaking thrones to their centres, upheaving the masses like an earthquake, and 180 MY LIFE AKD TIMES. rocking the solid pillars of this Union. The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders ; they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Repub- licans, Jacobins on the one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battle-ground, Christianity and atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity the stake. One party seems to regard society, with all its complicated in- terests, its divisions and subdivisions, as the machinery of man, which, as it has been invented and arranged by his ingenuity and skill, may be taken to pieces, recon- structed, altered or repaired, as experience shall indicate defects or confusion in the original plan. The other party beholds in it the ordinance of God, and contemplates 'this little scene of human life' as placed in the middle of a scheme, whose beginnings must be traced to the unfath- omable depths of the past, and whose development and completion must be sought in the still more unfathomable depths of the future — a scheme, as Butler expresses it, 'not fixed, but progressive, every way incomprehensible,' in which, consequently, irregularity is the confession of our ig-norance, disorder the proof of our blindness, and with which it is as awful temerity to tamper as to sport with the name of God." Dr. Thornwell continues, "The part, accordingly, which is assigned to us in the tumult of the age, is the mainte- nance of the principles upon which the security of social order and the development of humanity depends, in their application to the distinctive institutions which have provoked u])on us the malediction of the world. The apostle bri(?fiy sums up all that is incumbent, at the pres- ent crisis, upon the slaveholders of the South, in the preg- nant text, "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." It is not my ]:)urpose to present the whole of this mag- nificent discourse, but only its chief parts, yet I shall en- deavor not to break the continuity of Dr. Thornwell's thought. He points out how manifestly it is slaves, not mere servants, whom the apostle is addressing. Finding it impossible to deny that slavery is an element of society. FIVE YEARS^ WORK AMONG THE NEGROES. 181 is sanctioned by Christ and his apostles, our enemies ad- mit that the letter of the Scriptures is in our favor, but that their spirit is against us. He proceeds to expose the confusion of ideas from which this distinction be- tween the letter and the spirit of the gospel has arisen. This confusion has arisen, he says, from a two-fold mis- apprehension : one, in relation to the nature of the slavery tolerated in the letter of the Scriptures, and the other in relation to the spirit of Christianity itself. 1. It is common to describe the slavery which the letter of the Scriptures tolerates, as the property of man in man, as the destruction of all human and personal rights, the absorption of the humanity of one individual into the will and power of another. "The very idea of a slave," says Dr. Channing, "is that he belongs to another; he is bound to live and labor for another, to be another's in- strument, and to make another's will his habitual law, however adverse to his own." "We have thus," says he in another place, "established the reality and sacredness of human rights, and that slavery is an infraction of these, it is too plain to need any labored proof. Slavery violates not one, but all, and violates them not incidentally, but necessarily, systematically, from its very nature." In other words, in every system of slavery, from the opera- tion of its inherent and essential principles, the slave ceases to be a person, a man, and becomes a mere instru- ment or thing. Dr. Channing does not charge this result upon the relation as it obtains under particular codes or at particular times or in particular places. He says, dis- tinctly and emphatically, that it violates all human rights, not incidentally^ but necessarily, systematically, from its very nature. It belongs to the very essence of slavery to divest its victims of humanity. "Slavery," says Professor Whewell, "is contrary to the fundamental principles of morality. It neglects the great primary distinction of Persons and Things, converting a person into a thing, an object merely passive, without any recognized attributes of human nature. A slave is, in the eye of the State which stamps him with that character, not acknowledged as a man. His pleasures and pains, his wishes and desires, his needs and springs of action, his 182 MY LIFE AND TIMES. tliouglits and feelings, are of no value whatever in the eye of the community. He is reduced to the level of the brutes. Even his crimes, as we have said, are not ac- knowledged as wrongs, lest it should be supi)osed that, as he may do a wrong, he may suffer one. And as there are for him no wrongs, because there are no rights, so there is for him nothing morally right, that is, as we have seen, nothing conformable to the Supreme Eule of Human jSTature ; for the Supreme Eule of his condition is the will of his master. He is thus divested of his moral nature, which is contrary to the great principle we have already laid down: that all men are moral beings, a principle which, we have seen, is one of the universal truths of morality, whether it be taken as a principle of justice or of humanity. It is a principle of justice depending upon the participation of all in a common humanity; it is a principle of humanity as authoritative and cogent as the fundamental idea of justice." "If this be a just description of slavery," says Dr. Thornwell, "the wonder is not that the civilized world is now indignant at its outrages and wrongs, but that it has been so slow in detecting its enormities, that mankind, for so many centuries, acquiesced in a system which con- tradicted every impulse of nature, every whisper of con- science, every dictate of religion, a system as monstrously unnatural as a general effort to walk upon the head or think with the feet. We have, however, no hesitation in saying that, whatever may be the technical language of the law in relation to certain aspects in which slavery is contemplated, the ideas of personal rights and personal responsibility pervade the whole system. It is a relation of man to man, a form of civil society, of which persons are the only elements, and not a relation of man to things. Under the Roman code, in which more offensive language than that employed by ourselves was used in reference to the subject, the apostles did not regard the personality of the slave as lost or swallowed up in the propriety of the master. They treat him as a man possessed of certain rights which it was injustice to disregard, and make it the office of Christianity to protect these rights by the solemn sanctions of religion, to enforce upon masters the neces- FIVE YEAES' WOEK AMONG THE NEGEOES. 183 sity, the moral obligation, of rendering to their bondmen that which is just and equal. Paul treats the services of slaves as duties, not like the toil of the ox or the ass, a labor exacted by the stringency of discipline, but a moral debt, in the payment of which they were render- ing a homage to God. 'Servants,' says he, 'be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men pleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart ; with good will doing service as to the Lord, and not to men ; knowing that whatever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.' We need not say to those who are acquainted with the very elements of moral philosophy that obedi- ence, except as a figured term, can never be applied to any but rational, intelligent, responsible agents. It is a voluntary homage to law, implied moral obligation and a sense of duty, and can only, in the way of analogy, be affirmed of the instinctive submission of brutes, or the mechanical employment of instruments and things. "The apostle," Dr. Thornwell continues, "not merely recognizes the moral agency of slaves in the phraseology which he uses, but treats them as possessed of conscience, reason and will by the motives which he presses. He says to them, in effect, that their services to their masters are duties which they owe to God, that a moral character at- taches to their works, and that they are the subjects of praise or blame, according to the principles upon which their obedience is rendered. 'The blind passivity of a corpse, or the mechanical subserviency of a tool,' which Dr. Channing and Professor Whewell regard as consti- tuting the very essence of every system of slavery, pre- cluding, as it does, every idea of merit or demerit, of approbation or of censure, never seems to have entered the head of the apostle. He considered slavery as a social and political economy, in which relations subsisted be- twixt moral, intelligent, responsil)le beings, involving reciprocal rights and reciprocal obligations. There was a right to command, on the one hand, an obligation to obey, on the other. Both parties might be guilty of in- 184 MY LIFE AND TIMES. justice and of wrong ; the master might prostitute his power by tyranny, cruelty and iniquitous exactions ; the servant might evade his duty from indolence, treachery or obstinate self-will. Religion held the scales of justice between them, and enforced fidelity upon each by the awful sanctions of eternity. This was clearly the aspect in which the apostle contemplated the subject. '^^The state of things," Dr. Thornwell says, "so graphi- cally described and eloquently deplored by the great father of Unitarian Christianity in America, is a pal- pable impossibility. The constitution of the human mind is in flagrant contradiction to the absorption of the con- science, will and understanding of one man into the per- sonality of another ; it is a thing which cannot be con- ceived, and, if it ever could take place, the termination of all responsibility on the part of the slave would render it ridiculous to labor for his spiritual improvement, or at- tribute to him any other immortality than that which Indian fables ascribe to the dog as the faithful companion of his master. And yet upon this absurdity, that slavery divests its victims of humanity, that it degrades them from the rank of responsible and voluntary agents to the condition of tools or brutes, the whole philosophical argu- ment against the morality of the system, as an existing institution, is founded. "The property of man in man, a fiction to which even the imagination cannot give consistency, is the miserable cant of those who would storm by prejudice what they cannot demolish by argument. We do not even pretend that the organs of the body can be said strictly to belong to another. The limbs and members of my servant are not mine, but his ; they are not tools and instruments which 1 can sport with at pleasure, but the sacred posses- sions of a human being, which cannot be invaded without the authority of law, and for the use of which he can never be divested of his responsibility to God. "If, then, slavery is not inconsistent with the existence of personal rights and of moral obligation, it may be asked, in what does its peculiarity consist ? What is it that makes a man a slave ? We answer, the obligation to labor for another, determined by the providence of God, FIVE years' WOKK AMONG THE NEGROES. 185 independentlv of the provisions of a contract. The right which the master has is a right not to the man, but to his labor ; the duty which the slave owes is the service which, in conformity with this right, the master exacts. The essential difference betwixt free and slave labor is that one is rendered in consequence of a contract, the other is rendered in consequence of a command. The laborers in each case are equally moral, equally responsible, equally men ; but they work upon different principles. "It is strange that Channiug and Whewell should have overlooked the essential distinction of this form of ser- vice, as it lies patent in the writings of philosophers who preceded them. The definition given by Paley, a man preeminently marked by perspicuity of thought and vigor of expression, is exactly the same in spirit with our own. In the actual condition of society, the intervention of a contract is not always a matter of very great moment, since it is not always a security to freedom of choice. The providence of God marks out for the slave the precise services, in the lawful commands of the master, which it is the divine will that he should render ; the painful necessities of his case are often as stringent upon the free laborer, and determined with as stern a mandate what contracts he shall make. ^Neither can he be said to select liis emplo^Tuents. God allots to each his portion, places the one immediately under command, and leaves the other not unfrequently a petitioner for a master. "Whatever control the master has over the person of the slave is subsidiary to this right to his labor ; what he sells is not the man, but the property in his services ; true, he chastises the man, but the punishments inflicted for disobedience are no more inconsistent with personal re- sponsibilities than the punishments inflicted by the law for breaches of contract. On the contrary, punishment in contradiction from sufi^ering always implies responsi- bility, and a right which cannot be enforced is a right which society, as an organized community, has not yet acknowledged. The chastisements of slaves are, accord- ingly, no more entitled to awaken indignation of loyal and faithful citizens, however pretended philanthropists may describe the horrors of the scourge and the lash, than 186 MY LIFE AND TIMES. the penalties of disgrace, imprisonment or death, which all nations have inflicted npon crimes against the State. All that is necessary in any case is that the punishment should be just. Pain unrighteously inflicted is cruelty, whether that cruelty springs from the tyranny of a single master or the tyranny of that greater master, the State. Whether adequate provisions shall be made to protect the slave from inhumanity and oppression, whether he shall be exempt from suffering, except for disobedience and for crime, are questions to be decided by the law of the land ; and, in this matter, the codes of different nations and of the same nation at different times, have been various. Justice and religion require that such provisions should be made. It is no part of the essence of slavery, however, that the rights of the slave should be left to the caprice or to the interest of the master ; and in the Southern States provisions are actually made — whether adequate or inad- equate, it is useless here to discuss — to protect him from want, cruelty and unlawful domination. Provisions are made which recognize the doctrine of the apostle, that he is a subject of rights, and that justice must be rendered to his claims. When slavery is pronounced to be essentially sinful, the argument cannot turn upon incidental circum- stances of this system, upon the defective arrangement of the details, the inadequate securities which tJie law awards against infringement of acknowledged rights ; it must turn upon the nature of the relation itself, and must boldly attempt to prove that he ceases to be a man who is under obligation, without the formalities of a contract, to labor under the direction and for the benefit of another. If such a position is inconsistent with the essential ele- ments of humanity, then slavery is inhuman ; if society, on the other hand, has distinctly recognized the contrary as essential to good order, as in the case of children, ap- prentices and criminals, then slavery is consistent with the rights of man, and the pathetic declamation of aboli- tionists falls to the groimd. "This view of this subject exposes the confusion, which obtains in most popular treatises of morals, of slavery with involuntary servitude. The service, in so far as it consists in the motions of the limbs or organs of the body. FIVE YEAES^ WOEK AMOXG THE XEGEOES. 187 must be voluntary, or it could not exist at all. If by vol- untary be meant, however, that which results from hearty consent, and is, accordingly, rendered with cheer- fulness, it is precisely the service which the law of God enjoins. Servants are exhorted to obey, from considera- tions of duty, to make conscience of their tasks, with good will doing service as to the Lord, and not to men. Whether, in point of fact, their service in this sense shall be voluntary will depend upon their moral character. But the same may be said of free labor. There are other mo- tives beside the lash that may drive men to toil, when they are far from toiling with cheerfulness or good will. Others groan under their burdens as well as slaves, and many a man who works by contract is doomed to an in- voluntary servitude, which he as thoroughly detests as the most faithless slave who performs nothing but the painful drudgery of eye-service. There is a moral bondage, the most galling and degrading species of servitude, in which he may be held, as with chains of brass, who scorns to call any man master on earth." Dr. Thornwell here proceeds to say, "There is a free- dom which is the end and glory of man, the only freedom which the pen of inspiration has commended. It is the freedom which God approves, which Jesus bought by his blood, and the Holy Spirit seals effectually by his grace ; the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. It con- sists essentially in the dominion of rectitude, in the eman- cipation of the will from the power of sin, the release of the affections from the attractions of earth, the exemption of the understanding from the deceits of prejudice and error. It is a freedom which the truth of God brings with it, a freedom enjoyed by the martyr at the stake, a slave in his chains, a prisoner in his dungeon, as well as the king upon his throne. Independent of time or place, or the accidents of fortune, it is the breath of the soul as regenerated and redeemed, and can no more be torn from us than the atmosphere of heaven can be restrained. 'If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.' This freedom makes man truly a man ; and it is precisely the assertion of this freedom, this dominion of rectitude, this supremacy of right, which the apostle enjoins upon 188 MY LIFE AND TIMES. slaves when he exhorts them to obey their masters, in sin- gleness of heart, as imto Christ, to despise eye-service, and to do their work as in the eye of God. To obey, under the inflnence of these motives, is to be slaves no longer. This is a free service, a service which God accepts as the loyal homage of the soul, and which proclaims them to be the Lord's freemen, while they honor their masters on earth. Such slavery might be their glory, might fit them for thrones in the kingdom of God. So far was the apostle, therefore, from regarding involuntary servitude as the characteristic of slavery that he condemned such servitude as a sin. He treats it as something that is abject, mean, despicable; but insists, on the other hand, that slavery dignifies and ennobles the servant who obeys from the heart." 2. Dr. Thornwell now takes up the question whether, admitting that slavery is not absolutely inconsistent with moral responsibility, it yet does not strip the slave of some of the rights which belong to him essentially as a man; and whether slavery is not, in this view, incompatible with the spirit of the gospel. This question, he says, com- prises the whole moral difficulty of slavery. It is at this point that the friends and enemies of the system are equally tempted to run into extravagance and excess, the one party denying the inestimable value of freedom, the other exaggerating the nature and extent of human rights, and both overlooking the real scope and purpose of the gospel in relation to the present interests of man. That the design of Christianity is to secure the perfec- tion of the race is obvious from all its arrangements, and that, when this end shall have been consummated, slavery must cease to exist, is equally clear. This is only assert- ing there will be no bondage in heaven. If Adam had never sinned and brought death into the world with all our woe, the bondage of man to man would never have been instituted ; and Avhen the effects of transgression shall have been purged from the earth, all bondage shall be abolished. In this sense slavery is inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel, viz., that it contemplates a state of things, an existing economy, which it is the design of the gospel to remove. Slavery is a part of the curse FIVE YEAKS" WOKK AMONG THE NEGROES. 189 Avhicli sin has introduced into the world, and stands in the same general relations to Christianity as poverty, sick- ness, disease or death. In other words, it is a relation which can only be conceived as taking place among fallen beings tainted with a curse. It springs, not from the nature of man as man, nor from the nature of society as such, but from the nature of man as sinful and the nature of society as disordered. Upon an earth radiant with the smile of heaven, or in the paradise of God, we can no more picture the figure of a slave than we can picture the figures of the halt, the maimed, the lame and the blind ; we can no more fancy the existence of masters and tasks than we can dream of hospitals and beggars. These are the badges of a fallen world. That it is inconsistent with a perfect state, that it is not absolutely a good, a blessing, the most strenuous defender of slavery ought not to permit himself to deny ; and the devout believer in revelation would be mad to close his eyes to the fact that the form in which it is first threatened in the Bible is as a punishment for crime. It is a natural evil which God has visited upon society, be- cause man kept not his first estate, but fell, and, under the gospel, is turned, like all other natural evils, into the means of an effective spiritual discipline. The gospel does not propose to make our present state a perfect one, to make our earth a heaven. Here is where the philan- thropists mistake. Admit, then, that slavery is inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel as that spirit is to find its full development in a state of glory, yet the conclusion by no means fol- lows that it is inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel, as that spirit operates among rebels and sinners in a de- graded world, and under a dispensation of grace. The real question is, whether it is incompatible with the spiritual prosperity of individuals, or the general progress and education of society. It is clearly the office of the gospel to train men, by virtue of the discipline of tempta- tion, hardship and evil, for a state of perfection and glory. ISTothing is inconsistent with it which does not present obstacles to the practice of duty, which its own grace is inadequate to surmount. Whoever, therefore, 190 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. would maintain that slavery is incompatible with the present relations of the gospel to man, must maintain that it preelndes him, by its very natnre, from the discharge of some of the duties which the gospel enjoins. It is nothing to the purpose to speak of it generally and vaguely as an evil ; it must be shown to be an evil of that specific kind which necessitates the commission of sin and the neglect of duty. Neither is it sufScient to say that it presents strong temptations to sin, in the violent motives which a master may press upon a slave to execute unlaw- ful commands. This can be affirmed of numberless other situations in which none will contend that it is unlawful to be foun(h_ The question is, not whether it is the state most favorable to the offices of piety and virtue, but whether it is essentially incompatible with their exercise. This is the true issue. The fundamental mistake of those who affirm slavery to be essentially sinful, is that the duties of all men are specifically the same. Though they do not state the prop- osition in so many words, and, in its naked form, would probably dissent from it, yet a little attention to their reason puts it beyond doubt, that this is the radical as- sumption upon which they proceed, all men are bound to do specifically the same things. As there are, obviously, duties of some men, in some relations, which cannot be ])ractised by a slave, they infer that the institution strips him of his rights, and curtails the fair proportions of his humanity. The argument, fully and legitimately carried out, would condemn every arrangement of society which did not secure to all its members an absolute equality of position; it is the very spirit of socialism and commun- ism. IS^ow, unless slavery is incompatible with the habitudes of holiness, unless it is inconsistent with the spirit of phil- anthropy or the spirit of piety, unless it furnishes no opportunities for obedience to the law, it is not incon- sistent with the pursuit or attainment of the highest excellence. It is no al)ridgment of moral freedom ; the slave may come from the probation of his circumstances as fully stamped with the image of God as those who have enjoyed an easier lot ; he may be as completely in unison FIVE YEAES" WORK AMONG THE NEGROES. 191 with the spirit of universal rectitude as if he had been trained on flowery beds of ease. Let him discharge his whole duty in the actual circumstances of his case, and he is entitled to the praise of a perfect and an upright man. The question with God is, not what he has done, but how. Man looketh at the outward circumstances, but God looketh at the heart. Hence those moralists are grievously in error who have represented slavery as in- consistent with the full complement of human duty. ISTo proposition can be clearer than that the rights of man must be ultimately traced to his duties, and are nothing more than the obligations of his fellows to let him alone in the discharge of all the functions, and the enjoy- ment of all the blessings of his lot. Whatever puts an obstruction or hindrance to the complement of his duties, is an encroachment upon the complement of his rights as a man. Whatever is incompatible with the exercise of his moral nature, is destructive of the fundamental law of his being. But, as the moral discipline of man is con- sistent with the greatest variety of external condition, it is consistent with the greatest variety of contingent rights, of rights which spring from peculiar circumstances and peculiar relations, and in the absence of which a man may still be a man. These cannot be treated as a fixed and invariable quantity. Dependent as they are upon our duties, which, in turn, are dependent upon our circum- stances, they fluctuate with the gradations and progress of society, being wider or narrower, according to the spheres in which we move. It is only by postulating duties for the slave which God has not enjoined on him, that any show of decency can be given to the declamations against the robbery and fraud which have incapacitated him to perform them. The slave has rights, all the rights which belong essentially to humanity, and without which his nature could not be human or his conduct susceptible of praise or blame. In the enjoyment of these rights, relig- ion demands that he should be protected. But, then, there are rights which belong to men in other situations, to which he is by no means entitled, the rights of the citizen, for example, and the free member of the commonwealth. They are not his, for the simple reason 192 MY LIFE AND TIMES. that they are not essential, but contingent ; they do not spring from humanity, simply considered, for then they would belong to women and children, but from humanity in such and such relations. As to the influence of slavery upon the advancement of society, there can be no doubt, if the government of God be moral, that the true progress of communities and States, as well as the highest interests of individuals, de- pends upon the fidelity with which the duties are dis- charged injevery condition of life. It is the great law of providential education that, "to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance ; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." In this way the reign of universal justice is promoted, and, wherever that obtains, the development of the indi- vidual, which is the great end of all social and political institutions, must infallibly take place. The prosperity of the State, at the same time, is secured, and secured, too, without the necessity of sudden changes or violent revolu- tions. It will be like the vigor of a healthful body, in which all the limbs and organs perform their appropriate functions without collision or tumult, and its ascension to a high degree of moral elevation will be like the growth of such a body, silent and imperceptible, the natural re- sult of the blessing of God upon the means he has ap- pointed. Let masters and servants, each in their re- spective spheres, be impregnated with the principle of duty ; let masters resolve to render unto their servants that which is just and equal, never transcending the legitimate bounds of their authority, and servants resolve to cherish sentiments of reverence for their masters according to the flesh, never falling short of the legitimate claims on their obedience, and the chief good of each, as individuals and as men, will be most surely promoted, while each will contribute an important share to the strength and stability of the commonwealth. The feet are as indispensable to the head as the head to the feet. The social fabric is made up of divers ingredients, and the cement which binds them together in durability and unity is the cement of justice. Beside the arguments drawn from considerations of FIVE YEAKS" WORK AMONG THE NEGROES. 193 justice and the essential rights of humanity, the incom- patibility of slavery with the spirit and temper of the gospel is not unf requently attempted to be made out from the injunction of the Saviour to love our neighbor as our- selves, and to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. The principle, however, upon which the precept of universal benevolence is interpreted, in this case, makes it the sanction of the grossest wickedness. If we are to regulate our conduct to others by the arbitrary expectations which, in their circumstances, our passions and selfishness might prompt us to indulge, there ceases to be any other standard of morality than caprice. The humor of every man becomes law. The judge could not condemn the criminal nor the executioner behead him ; the rich man could not claim his possessions nor the poor learn patience from their sufferings. If I am bound to emancipate my slave, because, if the tables were turned, and our situations reversed, I should covet this boon from him, I should be bound, upon the same principle, to pro- mote my indigent neighbors around me to an absolute equality with myself. That neither the Jews, in whose law the precept was first formally announced, nor the apostles, to whom it was more fully expounded by the Saviour, ever applied it in the sense of the abolitionists, is a strong presumption against their mode of interpreta- tion. The truth is, the precept is simply the inculcation of justice from motives of love. Our Saviour directs us to do unto others what, in their situations, it would be right and reasonable in us to expect from them. We are to put ourselves in their situations, that we may duly weigh the circumstances of their case, and so be prepared to apply to it the principles of universal justice. We are to let no motives of indolence, ease or apathy ]3revent us from considering their condition. We are to take the same interest in them that we would take in ourselves, and are to extend to them the same protection of the divine law which we would insist upon for ourselves. The rule, then, simply requires, in the case of slavery, that we should treat our slaves as we should feel that we had a right to be treated if we were slaves ourselves ; it is only enforcing, by benevolence, the apostolic injunc- 194 MY LIFE AND TIMES. tion, "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal." Do right, in other v^ords, as you would claim right. The instances which are usually urged to prove that slavery is inconsistent with the rights of man, unfortu- nately for the argument, are not peculiar to slavery. They are incidents of poverty wherever it prevails in a distressing form ; and a wise system of legislation could much more easily detach them from the system of slavery than from the deep indigence which is sure to crush the laborer where a crowded population obtains. They are, at best, only abuses, in the one case, which might be cor- rected, while in the other they seem to be inseparable elements. It may be worth while to notice the popular argument against slavery drawn from the fact, that, as it must have begun in the perpetration of grievous ^\Tong, no lapse of time can make it subsequently right — prescription can never sanctify injustice. The answer turns upon the dis- tinction between the wrong itself and the effects of the wrong. The criminal act, whatever it may have been, by which a man was reduced to the condition of bondage, can never cease to be otherwise than criminal, but the rela- tions to which that act gave rise may, themselves, be con- sistent with the will of God, and the foundation of new and important duties. The relations of a man to his natural offspring, though wickedly formed, give rise to duties which would be ill-discharged by the destruction of the child. No doubt the principle upon which slavery has been most largely engrafted into society as an integral element of its com})lex constitution — the princi])lo that captivity in war gives a right to the life of a prisoner for which his bondage is accepted in exchange — is not con- sistent with the truth of the case. But it was recognized as true for ages and generations ; it was a step in the moral development of nations, and has laid the founda- tion of institutions and usages which cannot now be dis- turbed with impunity, and in regard to which our conduct must be regulated by the fact of their existence, and not by speculation upon the morality of their origin. Our world exhibits ever^^vhere the traces of sin ; and, if FIVE years" work AMONG THE NEGROES. 195' we tolerate nothing but what we may expect to find in a state of perfection and holiness, we must leave this scene of sublunary distraction. The education of States is a slow process. Their standard of rectitude slowly approx- imates the standard of God, and in their ages of infancy, ignorance and blindness, they establish many institutions upon false maxims, which cannot subsequently be extir- pated without abandoning the whole of the real progress they have made, and reconstituting society afresh. These things, moreover, take place under the sleepless provi- dence of God, who is surely accomplishing his own great purposes, and who makes the wrath of man to praise him, and restrains at pleasure the remainder of wrath. Enough has been said to show that slavery is not repug- nant to the spirit of the gospel in its present relations to our race. It is one of the conditions in which God is conducting the moral probation of man — a condition not incompatible with the highest moral freedom, the true glory of the race, and, therefore, not unfit for the moral and spiritual discipline which Christianity has instituted. It is one of the schools in which immortal spirits are trained for their final destiny. If it is attended with severer hardships, these hardships are compensated by fewer duties, and the very violence of its temptations gives dignity and lustre to its virtues. The slave may be fitted, in his humble and, if you please, degraded lot, for shining as a star in the firmament of heaven. In his narrow sphere he may be cherishing and cultivating a spirit which shall render him meet for the society of angels and the everlasting enjoyment of God. The Chris- tian beholds in him, not a tool, not a chattel, not a brute or thing, but an immortal spirit, assigned to a particular position in this world of -wretchedness and sin, in which he is required to work out the destiny which attaches to him, in common with his fellows, as a man. He is an actor on the broad theatre of life ; and, as true merit de- pends, not so much upon the part which is assigned as upon the propriety and dignity with which it is sustained, so fidelity; in this relation may hereafter be as conspicu- ously rewarded as fidelity in more exalted stations. Angels and God look not upon the outward state of man ;. 196 MY LIFE AND TIMES. the poverty, rags and wretchedness of one, the robes, dia- dems and crowns of another, are nothiiiii'. Tnio worth is the moral vesture of the souL The spirit of obedience, the love of holiness, sympathy with God, these are the things which make men beautiful and glorious. This is true freedom ; these are the things which shall endure and flourish with increasing lustre wlicu thrones have crumbled in the dust and republics mouldered among the ruins of the past. ^ In treating slavery as an existing institution, a fact involving most important moral relations, one of the prime duties of the State is to protect, by temporal legis- lation, the real rights of the slave. The moral sense of the country acknowledges them ; the religion of the country, to a large extent, insures their observance ; but, until they are defined by law and enforced by penalties, there is no adequate protection of them. They are in the category of imperfect, and not of perfect, rights. The effect of legal protection would be to counteract whatever tendencies to produce servility and abjectness of mind slavery may be supposed to possess. It would inspire a sense of personal responsibility, a certain degree of man- liness and dignity of character which would be at once a security to the master and an immense blessing to the slave. The meanness, cunning, hypocrisy, lying and theft, which accompany a sense of degradation would give place to the opposite virtues, and there would be no foundation in our social relations for that slavery which Cicero defines, ohedientia fracti animi et ahjecti, et arhi- trio carentis suo. In the different systems of slavery, taken collectively, all the essential rights of humanity have been recognized by law, showing that there is nothing in the relation itself inconsistent with this legal protection. The right to acquire knowledge, which is practically admitted by us, though legally denied, was fully recognized by the Ro- mans, whose slaves were often the teachers of their chil- dren and the scholars of the commonwealth. The right of the family was formally protected among the Span- iards; and the right to personal safety is largely pro- tected by ourselves. But, without stopping to inquire in FIVE YEAKS'' WOKK AMOJN'G THE NEGROES. 197 what way temporal legislation may most effectually pro- tect the rights of the slave, we hesitate not to affirm, that one of the highest and most solemn obligations which rest upon the masters of the South is to give their ser- vants, to the utmost extent of their ability, free access to the instructions and institutions of the gospel. The injustice of denying to them food and raiment and shelter, against which the law effectually guards, is nothing to the injustice of defrauding them of that bread which Cometh down from heaven. Their labor is ours. From infancy to age, they attend on us ; they greet our intro- duction into the world with smiles of joy, and lament our departure with a heartfelt sorrow; and every motive of humanity and religion exacts from us that we should remunerate their services by putting within their reach the means of securing a blessed immortality. The mean- est slave has in him a soul of priceless value. "No earthly or celestial language can exaggerate its worth. Thought, reason, conscience, the capacity of virtue, the capacity of Christian love, an immortal destiny, an inti- mate moral connection with God — here are attributes of our common humanity which reduce to insignificance all outward distinctions, and make every human being" a sublime, an awful object. That soul has sinned; it is under the curse of the Almighty, and nothing can save it from an intolerable hell but the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. They must hear this joyful sound or perish. For "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher, and how shall they preach except they be sent ?" Our design in giving them the gospel is not to civilize them, not to change their social condition, not to exalt them into citizens or freemen ; it is to save them. The church contemplates them only as sinners, and she is straitened to declare unto them the unsearchable riches of Christ. She sees them as the poor of the land under the lawful dominion of their masters ; and she says to these masters, in the name and by the authority of God, Give them what justice, benevolence, humanity would demand, even for a stranger, an enemy, a persecutor — give them the gospel, without which life will be a curse. 198 MY LIFE AND TIMES. Sweeten their toil, sanctify their live«, hallow their deaths. The solemnities of this night are a proof that the call has not been wholly disregarded among us. The work which we here begin is a good work. God grant that such work may never cease until every slave in the land is brought under the tuition of Jesus of Nazareth ! None need be afraid of his lessons. It was said of him on earth that he should not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to bo heard in the streets. He was no stirrer up of strife, no mover of sedition. His "religion, on the other hand, is the pillar of society, the safeguard of nations, the parent of social order, which alone has power to curb the fury of the passions, and secure to every one his rights : to the laborious, the reward of their industry; to the rich, the enjoyment of their wealth; to nobles, the preservation of their honors, and to the princes, the stability of their thrones." Insurrection^ anarchy and bloodshed, revolt against masters, or treason against States, were never learned in the school of him whose apostles enjoins sub- jection to the magistrate and obedience to all lawful au- thority as characteristic duties of the faithful. Is any- thing to be apprehended from the instructions of him in whose text-book it is recorded, ''Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their masters worthy of all honor" ? Christian knowledge inculcates contentment with our lot ; and, in bringing before us the tremendous realities of eternity, renders us comparatively indifferent to the inconveniences and hardships of time. It subdues those passions and prejudices from which all real danger to the social economy springs. "Some have objected," says a splendid writer,* "to the instruction of the lower classes from an apprehension that it would lift them above their sphere, make them dissatisfied with their sta- tion in life, and, by impairing the habits of subordi- nation, endanger the tranquillity of the State; an objec- tion devoid, surely, of all force and validity. It is not easy to conceive in what manner instructing men in their * Robert Hall. Advantages of Knowledge to the Lower Classes '(Works, Vol. I., p. 202). FIVE YEAES' WORK AMONG THE NEGROES. 199 duties can prompt them to neglect those duties, or how that enlargement of reason, which enables them to compre- hend the true groimds of authority, and the obligation to obedience, should indispose them to obey. The admirable mechanism of society, together with that subordination of ranks which is essential to its subsistence, is surely not an elaborate imposture which the exercise of reason will detect and expose. The objection we have stated implies a reflection on the social order equally impolitic, invid- ious and unjust. Kothing, in reality, renders legitimate governments so insecure as extreme ignorance in the peo- ple. It is this which yields them an easy prey to seduc- tion, makes them the victims of prejudice and false alarms, and so ferocious withal, that their interference in a time of public commotion is more to be dreaded than the eruption of a volcano. It is thus Dr. Thornwell set forth the Christian doc- trine of slavery. Had my Charleston undertaking been productive of no other good than the inducing of Dr. Thornwell to prepare this admirable exposition, I should not feel that my time and labor had been spent in vain. The text itself is the sermon. It either contains or it suggests all the ideas which the preacher presented to his congregation. The very name which it gives to slave- holders, and then to our Lord Jesus himself, is most sig- nificant, making it manifest that the slaveholder, in the Apostle's apprehension, is not the dreadful character de- scribed by abolitionists. If the doctrine of this sermon is not the truth of the gospel, the apostle had not dared to apply the same name to us and our Saviour ; he had made a misnomer in calling us by the name he gives to Christ, or he had blasphemed our Lord by ap- plying to him a title which befits us, only because it covered up all the enormous wickedness of which we were guilty. These principles, as Dr. Thornwell sets them forth, are scriptural. They cannot die. Slavery is dead in the South, and the South has no tears to shed over it. But these principles cannot die. Could expositions of them, like this one, have reached the I^^orth in time, and been disseminated far and wide, and fairly considered by all 200 MY LIFE AND TIMES. that people, the current of subsequent events might possi- bly have been changed. But, though these principles cannot die, they must needs be set forth continually ; because the true " Freedom's battle once begun, Bcqueatli'd by faithful sire to son, Though baffled oft, is ever won." And— " Truth crushed to earth shall rise again; The eternal years of God are hers." Yes, these principles cannot die, and so, too, though slavery be dead, the battle for them must still go on ; be- cause the war against Christianity by Atheism, in all its varied forms, is far from being ended, and the friends of truth must be ceaselessly active in disseminating the prin- ciples of the word of God. Dr. Thornwell well says, "What disasters it will be necessary to pass through be- fore the nations can be taught the lessons of providence, what lights shall be extinguished and what horrors ex- perienced, no human sagacity can foresee. But that the world is now the theatre of an extraordinary conflict of great principles ; that the foundations of society are about to be explored to their depths, and the sources of social and political prosperity laid bare ; that the questions in dispute involve all that is dear and precious to man on earth — the most superficial observer cannot fail to per- ceive. Experiment after experiment may be made, disas- ter succeed disaster, in carrying out the principles of an atheistic philosophy, until the nations, wearied and heart- sickened with changes without improvement, shall open their eyes to the real causes of their calamities, and learn the lessons which wisdom shall evolve from the events that shall come to pass. Truth must triumph. God will vin- dicate the appointments of his providence." CHAPTER VIIL Retirement from the iSTEGRO Work. — Dr. Girardeau Succeeds. — Eyes Recuperate from Five Years'" Farm Life. — Called to Theological Seminary. 1852-1857. I GAVE over five years, that is, from 1846 to the close of 1851, to the enterprise of establishing a church in Charleston for negro instruction separately from the whites, but under a white minister and white Sunday- school teachers. During these years I was also consider- ably occupied in the domestic missionary work of my presbytery, and also promoting the interest of our Theo- logical Seminary at Columbia in various ways, as in carrying on a long correspondence with Dr. McGill, of Allegheny Seminary, in the hope of inducing him to be- come our professor of Church History and Polity. This, however, proved a vain effort, though the correspondence was very much protracted. He did come and serve us, however, for a little while. Early in 1850 there culminated another tremendous agitation in the South in respect to disunion. There was still the same dissatisfaction with the tariff law, by which the government was building up the Xorthern manufac- turers at the expense of the Southern agi'iculturists ; but another and very dangerous element was now added to this dissatisfaction. Abolition sentiment at the ]*^orth was now of seventeen years' growth ; the underground railroad had been established ; slaves were lured away from their homes and masters, and the ISTorth would not surrender such fugitives, as she was bound to do by the Constitution of the United States ; meanwhile, the South was beginning to be flooded with incendiary documents designed to rouse up insurrections by the negroes. TAventy years ago the question with the South was of nul- lification. 'Now it was of secession. My father, now an old man of seventy-three, was again on the Union side, 202 MY LIFE AND TIMES. and very niiich roused. But the excitement by no means equalled the period of 1830. I confess that my sympa- thies were not with him in this case. Still I was not prepared to go to extremes. I had grave doubts about the course that was advocated by a great many, and my father was so urgent that I should cast my vote against disunion that I yielded to his pressure and voted with him. I ap- pend here an interesting extract from a letter of Dr. Thornwell, addressed to me on this subject, of date, South Carolina College, March 8, 1850 : The condition of the country is a ceaseless burden on my spirits. The prospect of disunion I am unable to contemplate without ab- solute horror. Tliat this confederacy can be broken up, and the numberless questions arising out of its common interests adjusted without war, is a mere dream of the fancy. We must calculate from the obvious relations of the parties, upon the most bloody, ferocious and unscrupulous succession of hostilities in the annals of history. In addition to this, the attempt in the present age, when all the elements of disorder, socialism, communism, rabid democracy and open atheism are busily at work, the attempt under such circum- stances to organize new governments and to frame new constitu- tions, will be perilous in the extreme. Political quackery will have full scope, and after trying the vile nostrums which the atheistic philosophy of Europe has long been preparing for the evils of the world, we shall be compelled to fall back upon a military despotism, or something not much better. In this reign of anarchy and con- fusion, religion must retreat to the caves and the mountains. Our missionary operations must all be arrested. Our efforts to spread the Bible, to evangelize the country and to convert the world, must be abandoned, and darkness must be permitted to cover the earth and gross darkness the people. My soul is cast down within me, and I have hardly ceased for some weeks past to pray God, day and night, in belialf of the country. My hope is only in him. Vain, in this crisis, is the help of man. To my mind the dissolution of the Union is synonymous with ruin ; ruin to us, ruin to the North, ruin to all parties. It is another name for war, cruelty, political experi- ments, licentiousness, irreligion, atheism, anarchy. There is no telling where the process is to stop. California will certainly set up for itself, Texas may tile off, and as slavery dies out in the older States of the Southern Confederacy, the elements will be introduced of fresh agitations and fresh divisions. I cannot dwell upon the subject. May God mercifully turn the tide and send peace and pros- perity, at least in our days. KETIKEMENT FEOM THE NEGEO WORK. 203 At the close of 1851, the Rev. Ferdinand Jacobs took my phT,ce in the Anson street negro work, until the Rev. John L. Girardeau should be able to enter upon it. It must have been early in 1852 that I assisted Dr. Howe and some other brethren in securing from the churches of South Carolina the endowment of a professor- ship in Oglethorpe (College at Milledgeville, Georgia. This endowment had been promised to the churches of Georgia as compensation to them for their endowment of a chair in the Theological Seminary, which belonged to the synods of South Carolina and Georgia. But years had passed, and the South Carolina promise was never fulfilled. Considerable irritation between the two bodies was the consequence, and an earnest effort began to be made by a few of our brethren in this State to remove this cause of offence. It was my privilege to visit the churches of Harmony Presbytery and aid their pastors in securing the full share of this endowment which was allotted to each by the synod. Our efforts were successful, and great was the joy that followed, when we were able completely to fulfill our promises. But the General Assembly was to meet that year, on the 20th of May, in the city of Charleston, and, of course, 1 could not set out on my visit to the up-country until after that meeting. I was put on the committee of recep- tion. There were two delegates from ]^ew England who came to the Assembly. One of these was an intimate Princeton Seminary friend of mine, the Rev. J. K. Con- verse. The name of the other I am not able to recall. He was a very nice and intelligent gentleman, who was very much alive to everything that concerned our negroes. I wanted my friend Converse, of course, to be at my house ; and I thought I could also make the other gentleman com- fortable, in all respects, if I got him to stay with me. He wanted to know everything that related to our slaves, for whom he expressed very particular sympathy and affec- tion. Of course, he was greatly interested to hear all about my church for the colored people. He waited im- patiently for Sunday to come, when he promised himself the pleasure of attending at their place of worship, and joining in religious services with them. He was the more 204 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. interested about this service when he learned that the communion of the Lord's Supper would be administered on that occasion to the black people, and also to their white friends who might be present. Sunday afternoon came when he was to accompany us to this service, but he could not be found. We looked everywhere for him in vain. He had taken himself off. It turned out that the idea of a communion season for the two races together, when he had once got time to think about it, scared him. He was alarmed lest it might happen to him to drink out of the same cup of which the negroes had partaken. We did not hear much from him about our slaves after this. The General Assembly, which was now to begin its meeting in Charleston, was of our yet undivided Presby- terian Church, and consisted of commissioners from both j^orth and South. The retiring ]\Ioderator was my friend Humphrey, the same who stood at my side in the excited Evangelical Alliance at London in 1846, and was the first, after Dr. Smyth, to second my protest there. Six years had made him a very eminent minister in the Pres- byterian Church. The sermon with which he opened the Assembly delighted the people of Charleston very greatly, by his elegant references to the Huguenot forefathers of many of our citizens. Many people were greatly de- lighted with the whole proceedings ; but some of the acts of the Assembly gave very great dissatisfaction to many sound and earnest Presbyterians. I append here the larger part of a letter which Dr. Thornwell wrote me, dated 2d June, almost immediately after the dissolution of that Assembly : What I want specially to write to you about is the course of the late Assembly. It has filled me with profound sorrow. Most of its proceedings were mere nothings — a series of inanities — but the only measures of any consequence that it thouglit proper to adopt were steps backward. It has lowered the tone of the church upon every subject on which she has heretofore spoken, and manifested a spirit of compromise and concession to mere carnal influences of which I am heartily ashamed. Things seem to me to have been done in utter confusion. Resolutions adopted which nobody understood ; all was hurry, and, as a necessary consequence, much was folly, if nothing worse. I shall instance in three things: 1. There was the discontinuance of the Popery sermon. This cir- THE GENEEAL ASSEMBLY OF 1852. 205 cumstance is significant. It is a concession which ought never to have been made. Some of the arguments would have done very well if the question were, shall we institute such a sermon? but the ques- tion is very different when it assumes the shape of backing out from a position already assumed. I regretted this resolution very much. I regretted particularly that it should have passed in Charleston just at this time. 2. There was the vote of censure upon the records of the Synod of South Carolina. This vote goes much further than any previous action of the Assembly, or any other church court. It is a virtual declaration that ruling elders are mere cyphers, and the sooner we kick them out of our courts the better. The resolution of owv Synod did not affirm that their presence was essential to the con- stitution of a court, or that its proceedings were invalid without them; it affirmed just the opposite of these things, and maintained only that it was not regular ; it was not the spirit of our constitu- tion (which contemplates an equal number of ministers and ruling elders) to organize without them. This, it seems, however, is not to be endured. If they happen to be there, they may be allowed to sit; if not there, nobody cares; we can get along as well without them. What makes this abominable vote still worse, I have seen no one yet who knew what he was voting about when he gave his vote. The stab was inflicted in the dark. 3. But the most atrocious of all the proceedings was the resolu- tion in relation to the Charleston Union Presbytery. Every single distinctive feature of the past testimony of the church, in the great struggle which terminated in the rupture of 1837-1838, has here been formally or virtually surrendered. The elective affinity prin- ciple has been endorsed out and out; the right of every court to examine its members surrendered, and the preeminent importance of soundness in the faith in the gospel ministry, virtually denied by affirming that the boldest of all declarations, that of adherence to our doctrinal standards, a declaration which every New-School man during our whole controversy repeated ad nauseam, shall be suffi- cient, even in cases where there is the strongest reason to suspect that these standards are interpreted after a fashion that no Old- School man can approve. I cannot express my amazement that such a measure could have been swallowed by a General Assembly of the Old-School church. Things were going on finely among us. Public sympathy was in our direction, or getting to be so, in Charleston. We had adopted a policy, which surely, but slowly, would have Presbyterianized all the independent churches in the low country; everything was play- ing into our hands, and we needed nothing but patience and perse- verance to succeed. But this measure has thrown us back, and re- 206 MY LIFE AND TIMES. indorsed the principle of a union in one mongrel court of every species of creature that will call itself Calvinist. The effects will be deplorable. This Assembly ought to have done what the Assem- bly of 1845 did. This same memorial, or one like it, was presented to that body, and after being heard or explained, was quietly laid upon the table. That Assembly was composed of good men and true. I have no idea that ten men can be found in the Synod who will obey the injunction. We shall refuse, and appoint a committee to argue our case at the bar of the next Assembly. We shall appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober. The resolution will be repealed as soon as the case is understood. It is well, however, that we do not meet next year at Buffalo at the same time with the New School body, as we might have gotten into another love fit, and received the whole batch of them, with tears of penitence in our eyes, and hum- ble petitions of pardon on our lips, for all past outrages upon their orthodoxy. I have written hastily just to unburden. I am full, and, as the fish-woman said, "I shall burst if I do not let some of the steam out." Our poor church is in the hands of God; this is my comfort, and it is the only thing which reconciles me to labor for her good. Human folly is so provoking, especially when, by one egregious ab- surdity, it upsets the work of years, that none of us could have the heart to toil on if it were not that God shall make the wrath of man to praise him. Having been present myself a deeply interested spec- tator, and an anxious listener to all that was said, I feel bound to say that haste and confusion seemed to me to characterize all the work of this Assembly more than any reputable quality. As to the Charleston Union Presbytery, the action taken by the Assembly was exceedingly offensive and un- just to all those in Charleston who were connected with itself. The Charleston Union Presbytery was a mixed body, having been originally formed, as its name implies, partly of Congregationalists and partly of Presbyterians. For the Assembly to receive such a body into union with itself was to endorse the old "plan of union" between Congregationalists and Presbyterians, which proved so fruitful of disorder in the jSTorthwest, and operated so efficaciously to produce the division of the Presbyterian Church in 1837 and 1838. Then, again, the Assembly, by its action in Charleston, endorsed that vicious princi- ple of "elective affinity," alluded to by Dr. Thornwell, THE GENEKAL ASSEMBI.Y OF 1852. 207 which had been so productive of heresy, as well as con- tention, sixty years ago. According to it, where, in a presbytery, serious, or, I might say, fatal differences of doctrinal belief prevailed, and rendered harmony impos- sible between its members, the body was allowed to dis- solve itself, and the various individual members of it, like the mixed-up particles of two distinct metals, each seeking after its own kind, be reunited into two presbyteries, one of Old School and the other of 'New School views, but both occupying the very same territory. Any one can see how destructive this would necessarily be, not only of purity, but also of peace. The Assembly of 1852 made arrange- ments for the Charleston Union Presbytery and its own Presbytery of Charleston to occupy the very same terri- tory, and both to be acknowledged as under its authority. "All this mischief" (as Dr. Thornwell writes to Dr. Breckinridge on the 28th of June) "was done upon an. ex palate statement of the Charleston Union Presbytery, which statement was never read in the Assembly at all, but referred to a committee, and that committee reported by naked resolution. The facts of the case were not be- fore the house. The committee reports its judgment upon the facts, and that judgment is all that the i\.ssembly had regularly before it." Dr. Thornwell well adds : "There were the strongest local reasons why the Assembly should not have touched this business. The Charleston Presby- tery had adopted, and was systematically pursuing, a line of policy which in a few years would have extinguished independency in the low country. We were gradually ab- sorbing all its churches. iN'ew Schoolism Avas dead. All we wanted was to be let alone ; but now things are put back where they were twenty years ago." Accordingly, on the 14th of June I wrote thus to Dr. Thornwell : If the Assembly deserve blame for their blind and thoughtless and unconstitutional action, much more should the commissioners from our own presbyteries receive censure for the representations which they made, and the representations they did not make, in the case. Especially was Mr. B found fault with for his course. He capped the climax by assuring the Assembly, contrary to the warn- ings we gave him the night before, that the action they were taking 2 OS MY LIFE AND TIMES. would please us all, and by imploring them, almost with tears, to act a mother's part, and, leaving nothing for the Synod to do, just to take both parties and bind them at once together.* As I stood there listening to such unwarrantable statements from our own representatives, I felt sick of the misplaced charity which reigned in the Assembly, and which induced our own brethren to lead that body astray. I can be charitable myself when we meet other Christian ministers on outside ground. I was associated for twelve years as a missionary to the Armenians with New England Congregation- alists, and we lived and constantly worked together in perfect charity. And, though I sometimes feel that the chief mistake of my life was to enter upon foreign missionaiy work in connection with the American Board, yet my judgment approves to this day the course I pursued while thus associated. Yet, when the question is as to receiving into our own church, which has its metes and bounds all marked down, a body of men who are not true and real Presby- terians, I have no ,use for any luawkish sentimentalism. The char- ity which does not guard the doors in such case, I call treachery. It should, however, be stated, that this whole unright- eous affair was consummated when the Synod, at its first subsequent meeting, amalgamated these two bodies into one presbytery. About the middle of June I set out to search for a home in the mountains, with my wife and four children. I also took with me my servant, Sarah. For the children and this servant, I had a carriage drawn by two horses. I had also a good driver. Part of my baggage was attached to this carriage; the remainder filled up the hinder part of the one-horse buggy, which I drove, with my wife be- side me. Carriages, horses and all were conveyed by railroad as far as Greenwood, where we spent the night at Dr. Calhoun's hotel ; the next day we set out in our vehi- cles for Abbeville, thence to Greenville and to Asheville, * The Assembly, however, stopped short of ]\Ir. B 's earnest petition: but it took order to have the same accomplished. Here is the resolution it adopted: "7?eso;ued,That if the CharlestonUniou Presbytery shall make known to the stated clerk of the General Assembly their adhersion to this General Assembly and its doctrinal standards prior to the next annual meeting of the Synod of South Carolina, it shall be the duty of the stated clerk to communicate the same, without delay, to said Synod ; and the Synod shall thereupon enroll them as a regular presbytery in connection with this body." SEAECHING FOE A HOME. 209 'N. C. We also penetrated into Tennessee one day's ride looking for a home. How different forty-five years ago were the towns I have named, Greenwood, Abbeville, Greenville, Asheville, from what each of them has grown to be at the period of this writing. They were indeed then nothing but small towns ; each of them now a flour- ishing city. I had found thus far no rest for the soles of our feet. Returning to Greenville, I met the Rev. S. S. Gaillard, who was then stationed at Greenville. He was about to set out to meet the South Carolina Presbytery, near Pendleton, at what was then known as Mt. Zion church. That congregation has since put up a fine brick building at a better spot, and the old church still stands, but is used as a gin-house for packing cotton. Being on my way to Clarksville, Ga., through Pendleton, I agreed that we should accompany Brother Gaillard to the South Carolina Presbytery's meeting. He took us, for the first night, to the hospitable dwelling of Major McCann, a Presbyterian elder living half way between Greenville and Pendleton. His house was well known then as open to all Presbyterian ministers on their journeys, and our large company was most kindly entertained. The next day Major McCann and 1 drove Gaillard's buggy, and he occupied a seat alongside of my wife and drove my fiery Kentucky mare. i\.s the Major and I drove along, we passed by a church building on the right-hand side of the road. He said, "That is called the" I^o-Hell Church." A Universalist preacher had come along some years pre- vious and got this building put up for him to occupy in preaching. His doctrine was new to that community. As they came to understand what he preached, the build- ing got the significant name which the Major had re- peated. This sobriquet killed off the stranger's enter- prise. His congregation very shortly deserted him en- tirely. The logical conclusion to which they had arrived was, that if there was no hell, there was no need of any church or any preacher, and the building remained shut up. We reached the presbytery's place of meeting towards the close of the afternoon, and there I met, amongst other ministers, my friend Buist, and renewed my acquaint- 210 MY LIFE AND TIMES. ance, formed long before, with McaSTeill Turner and David Humphreys, whom they now called Father Humphreys. With McjSTeill Turner, lately deceased after many years' service, I had been intimately ac- quainted from our very boyhood. David Humphreys I had kno^vn as a young Presbyterian preacher when I had travelled in the winter of 1833 through all these up coun- try churches, preaching to them about foreign missions. I became acquainted now, alsOj with several of the ruling elders. One of them, old Mr. Josiah Gaillard, the father of the minister, invited me and my family to his house. There we met with a very cordial reception, but my youngest daughter got sick, and I had to move up next day to the village of Pendleton, where I found quarters at the old Cherry Hotel, afterwards burnt down. We were detained here several days. Mr. Elam Sharpe, a Presbyterian ruling elder, undertook to show me around. The first place he took me to was Woodburn, which had' been the residence, for many years, of Mr, Charles Cotes- worth Pinckney, but he had recently sold out to Mr. David Taylor. I fell in love with Woodburn at first sight — the beautiful ride through its woods up to the house, the fine old dwelling itself, the splendid mountain view seen from its windows, the beautiful road down to- the stable, running over a ridge, with trees filling a hollow on the left hand, and on the right hand a romantic forest ravine. And, then, beyond the stable the fertile acres of bottom land. All these together made a deep impression on my fancy. It became clear to my secret thoughts that this, with its four hundred and fifty acres, was the home I was looking for. Prom Pendleton we went over to Clarksville, Ga., visiting Toccoa and Tallulah Falls by the way. I had made a promise to the Rev. Mr. Ketchum that I would settle nowhere without first seeing Clarks- ville and its surroundings. It is a beautiful country, and,, moreover, had some personal attractions for us ; amongst them, my good old friend and my father's friend, the ex- cellent Robert Camjjbell, Esq., a true Irish gentleman, and a consistent Christian. But Woodburn had hold of my heart. The Pinckneys had named it from a couplet in one of Walter Scott's poems, as follows: FIVE YEAKS OF FARM LIFE. 211 " Where Eeed upon hex- margin sees Sweet \^'oodburn's cottages and trees." It seemed, indeed, to me a very sweet place. It has long been a sweet place, though it has grown to be very much larger than when I bought it. It has been forty- five years in our family, and belonging now, with all his additions and improvements, to my nephew, Augustine T. Smythe, it is still a sweet place. I had not long returned to Pendleton before it became mine by purchase, and I began to repair and enlarge the old mansion, and to erect some necessary buildings. I had come to this mountain region on account of my damaged eyesight, and I was to devote myself to outdoor employment in this delicious climate. I had many things to see after, and was con- tinually on horseback, and my eyes were very much ben- efited. I must have attended the South Carolina Presbytery's spring meeting in 1853, though I cannot recall where it met. Being transferred from the Charleston Presbytery, I was then and there received as a member of the other body. So, too, I cannot recall where its fall meeting was held, but I remember well how kind my brethren were to me in appointing me their commissioner to the next General Assembly at Buffalo, K Y., in May, 1854. In the fall of 1853, there was a meeting of the Synod of South Carolina, in the city of Anderson. The Rev. B. M. Palmer, Jr., was then the very much beloved and ad- mired minister of our church at Columbia, and the chair of Church History and Polity being vacant, a very strong desire was felt, by sundry infiuential men, to transfer him from the pulpit to that chair. There was very long and earnest opposition to this measure, and the debate occupied two whole days. We defeated the proposition by a very large majority. The friends of the measure were greatly surprised and very much disappointed, and those Avho opposed it regretted very much that they had been forced to take that action. Their decided opposition to removing Dr. Palmer from the pulpit was well known to those who inaugurated and urged this movement, but these men overrated their o^^ti strength, and were con- fident of easily carrying their measure through the Synod. 212 MY LIFE AND TIMES, A good deal of excitement was aroused during this dis- cussion. Not one member of the opposition questioned the eminent fitness of Dr. Palmer for the vacant chair, but considered him as very specially called to the public preaching of the glorious gospel. Thus, it was settled by the Synod of South Carolina in 1853, that such a pastor- ship as Palmer then occupied^ must take precedence over a professorship in a Theological Seminary. The Buffalo Assembly of 1854 was the first I ever at- tended as a commissioner. This was eight years after my return from the East. Sitting in the hall of the American Hotel at Buffalo, and waiting for the hour to go over to the Assembly's first meeting, I saw a gentleman walking up and down in front of my seat, and I happened to catch a glance of his eyes. I rose immediately, stood before him and j3ut my two hands on his shoulders, and, looking him fully in the face, I said to him, "Who am I ?" He said, "I really do not know." I said, "Look backwards, and a good many years." He was still perfectly non- plussed. I said to him, "Why, David H. Little, you don't remember your room-mate at Union College, and those deep religious experiences we passed through to- gether ?" His name was Little ; but when we roomed to- gether, my person was very little, and I had changed a great deal more than he had. We had many a long talk after this, and when the Assembly closed, I visited him at his residence in Cherry Valley, in 'New York. To my great surprise and bewilderment the Kentucky brethren, headed by Stuart Robinson, insisted on nomi- nating me to be Moderator of the Assembly. This Avas purely because I was known to hold the same views as Thornwell and Palmer. But Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge, who was present, said he would vote for me on the ground that, when I returned from foreign service, I had "be- come a negro-preacher." He went on to express what I think is a true principle, that the honors of the church should be paid to the men who had labored and suffered for her, only he shoiJd have added this condition, pro- vided they are qualified for the office that was to honor them. For the office of Moderator I certainly was not qualified, for some eighteen years I had been engaged FIVE YEARS OF FARM LIFE. 213 in work that did not fit me to preside over the Assembly. I had had but little experience as to the proceedings of our church courts. Of course I was not elected. The chair was occupied bj Dr. Henrv A. Boardman, a Seminary class-mate of mine, a gentleman and a scholar, who was every way fitted to perform the duties imposed on him. And I, ac- cording to the Assembly's custom, was made the chairman of one of the most important standing committees, namely, the Committee of Domestic Missions. Every man who happened to be nominated as Moderator always received this kind of honor. At the Assembly of ISSi I made the acquaintance, per- sonally, of Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge, which was very valuable to me, and became somewhat intimate as years rolled on. Here also I learned to know that other great man, Stuart Kobinson. I renewed my college acquaint- ance with the somewhat celebrated Dr. McMaster, of New Albany Seminary, Ohio. In general, I learned a good deal about the condition and affairs of the whole Presby- terian Church. At the close of the Assembly my wife and I crossed over into Canada and visited a little town on Lake Ontario, where dwelt the parents of an English lady, with whom we were negotiating to obtain her services as governess for our three daughters. We had met her in Clarksville, Georgia, and, by appointment, we met her again here at her father's house. Our agreement with her was per- fected, and subsequently, in October, she entered our family, and she remained with us until after the war, and, after finishing the education of my daughters, she went to live Avith one of them, in whose family she still abides, and where she expects to close her days. October 13, 1854, Dr. Palmer wrote me as follows: "I have just returned from the Seceder Synod, where Brother Banks and myself were very kindly received ; and, perhaps, as much was accomplished as could be rea- sonably anticipated at the outset. A similar deputation was appointed to attend our Synod, and a committee raised to confer with any similar committee on our side. I was gratified to find nearly all the leading members 214: MY LIFE AND TIMES. anxious for the proposed union, but the body, as a whole, and especially the members of the church at large, are scarcely prepared yet for such a result. I hope we shall be patient and forbearing, as far as becomes a proper Christian self-respect ; and, if no more, intercommunion between the branches will be effected." I cannot recall how, precisely, began these efforts to effect union with that body and our Synod, but I know that, on the part of many in our body, the desire for this end was very sincere and earnest. We considered them to be strict Presbyterians, and aware of the growing laxity of Presbyterian principle amongst ourselves, we anticipated, if I. ma,y use a homely phrase, some stiffen- ing of our Synod's backbone from the union with these Seceder Brethren. They stand apart from us and deny us access to the Lord's table in their church, only, so far -as I know, on the question of Psalmody. Their position is that God has given to his church inspired Psalms to sing in his public worship, and that it is, therefore, un- lawful to sing in that worship any hymns composed by uninspired men. Our position is, that the Christian church has been furnished with Christian doctrine as a higher development of divine truth than the Jews pos- sessed, and may, therefore, well expect to have given her also a Christian, though uninspired Psalmody. There are some parts of Old Testament Scripture, for example, some chapters in Leviticus and ]^umbers, which we do not find profitable for reading in Christian congregations. And so there are some of the Psalms wdiicli were suited to the church in Old Testament times, but which are not adapted to the I^ew Testament church. Let no man say we are casting reproach on God's inspired word or ordi- nances. No one will venture to insist that the Old Testa- ment priesthood or the Old Testament sacrifices are dis- honored by us, because we hold that they are not suited to the Christian church. I think our negotiations with the Associate Reformed brethren had no practical result. In September of this year I was both surj^rised and gratified by a unanimous election to the presidency of Davidson College. I received letters from Drs. Howe FIVE YEARS OF FARM LIFE. 215 and Palmer urging me to postpone my decision of the ciuestion, thus brought before me, until after our Synod's meeting, when certain plans respecting the Seminary were expected to be settled, with which plans my own name had been involved, to a considerable degree. I was too well aware, however, of my incompetency for the presidency of the college to admit of my delaying a reply to the proposition from Davidson. The summer of 1854 was very much occupied, as just now intimated, by our brethren at Columbia and a few leading members of the board in plans for the recupera- tion of the Seminary. Dr. Thornwell had, many times during his connection with the South Carolina College, had misgivings whether that was really, in all respects, the right place for his life work. Tor many years he had filled the professorship of Sacred Literature and the Evi- dences of Christianity, being, at the same time, chaplain to the college. When, in 1851, he became the president he still continued to be chaplain, as well as to fill the chair of Sacred Literature and the Evidences of Chris- tianity, As a minister of the gospel, there were many, in the successive classes of the college, who became his spiritual children during their college life. In the minds of a great many more he had planted the seeds of gospel truth, whose fruits appeared long years after- wards. Yet, notwithstanding the fruitfulness of his min- istry in that institution, it was kno^^m to his intimate friends that he would like to be more directly engaged in the service of the church. Still further, the presiden- tial office involved too much of the government of the institution for his strength. He had too much mere police work to do. It was evident that he could not long con- tinue in that office. Yet he had instituted some most valuable reforms in the management of the college, and its friends, for many reasons, were extremely anxious to retain him in that office, as well as in the duties of profes- sor and chaplain. The truth was, there was much to be said on both sides of the question of his transfer from the college to the pro- fessorship of Theology in the Seminary, which now began to be seriously considered by some friends of this latter 216 MY LIFE AND TIMES. institution. Confessedly, his position in the college was one of vast importance to our whole State. Unspeakable injury to her youth, and to many of her most influential citizens, and to the interests of religion in general, had been the result of Dr. Cooper's influence as president of the college. The Christian people of the State, with one accord, at length had cried out against his longer con- tinuance in office. The influence of Presidents Barnwell, Thornwell and Dr. Elliott, had in turn succeeded, and had seemed, to all religious people, like daylight after dark-_ ness. The friends of the Seminary knew well what a sacrifice they were demanding of the college, but the Presbyterian Church had lent him to the State for a long time, and they now stood in great need of his services in the education of their rising ministry. At the same time, they greatly desired that Dr. Thornwell should devote himself largely to authorship. As Dr. Palmer has well said, in his Biogra'phy of Dr. Thornwell, "The controlling motive with those who advocated his translation to the Theological Seminary was that, in the prosecution of its sacred studies, he might pour out upon the church and upon the world the treasures of knowledge stored up through years of patient acquisition. Alas ! that the wish, so ardently cherished, should have been only half realized ! The reader will not close the perusal of his theological lectures, in the first volume of his Collected Writings, without a sigh that the church did not have the wisdom to effect the change in his position at least five years earlier. As Dr. Breckinridge says in a letter, /The blade was too sharp for the scabljard.' Too much study and too much care had already done their fearful execu- tion upon a feeble frame ; and death came in with his sad arrest before the great work which the church desired Avas half executed." At length (BiograpJiy, pp. 382- 383) the scheme, which had slowly matured in a few minds and was discussed at first only in private circles, took shape in definite resolutions prepared by the Board of Directors. The venerable Dr. Leland had cheerfully and cordially acceded to what was proposed. He was willing, in his old age, to vacate the chair of Didactic and Polemic Theology, that such an eminent instructor as Dr. FIVE YEARS OF FARM LIFE. 217 Thornwell should be secured to succeed him. The board's ''definite resolutions," above referred to, were ready the last of June, or first of July, 1854. They contemplated th6 appointment of Dr. Thornwell to the chair of The- ology, and of Dr. Palmer to the chair of Church History and Polity, which he had been provisionally and gratui- tously occupying for some time, in connection with his pastorship of the Columbia church. At the regular meet- ing of the Synod of South Carolina, on the 15th of ]^o- vember, 1851, at Charleston, these resolutions came up, and were thoroughly discussed. Dr. Palmer's position was fully explained and set before the Synod. He knew how desirable it was, on many grounds, to effect the trans- fer to the Seminary of our great theologian. He was will- ing to be or to do anything which the board proposed, if the Synod also concurred, in order to effect this great object. Dr. Thornwell was not present at this meeting of the SjTiod. His mind had been all along in great perplex- ity, having doubts in regard to several points relating to the transfer. He wanted, as stated before, to be in the more direct service of the church ; but he was serving her already in one institution of sacred learning, and the change from that to another similar institution did not altogether satisfy his longings. Moreover, he had been in doubt whether the number of candidates for the min- istry in the South was sufiicient to warrant the proposed transfer. He was doubtful whether the cheapness of living at Danville, as compared with Columbia, would not decide many to go to the former place who might otherwise be expected to come to Columbia. He had been even doubtful whether, all things considered, he might not be more useful to the church in the college than at the Seminary, and he therefore had contemplated the change not without fear, as well as pain. His heart had been long and greatly devoted to the college. He felt that nothing but the sternest necessity could justify the sac- rifice he was called to make, but he had become satisfied that that necessity did exist. Things had reached a crisis in the Seminary. It was much to be dreaded that, with- out some very decisive movement, the next session of the Seminary would open with a mere handful of students ; 218 MY LIFE AND TIMES. and the Synod was certainly lookino- to him to raise up the dying institution, lie knew how much was expected of him, and he was not willing to undertake the task, unless he had his friend and brother Palmer at his side to aid him in the effort. Such was the condition of the case which was now to be debated. The discussion w^hich ensued was long and earnest. Great influence had been employed to persuade members of the Synod, particularly the elders present, to vote against \^'hat was proposed. Many leading men in the State were bitterly opposed to the measure. Some of these had sons whom they were desirous to have educated at the South Carolina College under Dr. Thornwell. Many prominent Presbyterians, influenced by these and other honorable motives, stood out against the transfer. As has been intimated already, much could be said on behalf of the college, and much was said. But the Sem- inary also had very strong friends on the floor, and, for a good while, the issue seemed to be doubtful. Amongst other things, it was maintained by the former class that Dr. Thornwell could not be induced to leave the college, and not a few members of the Synod seemed to accept this statement. It had leaked out that I had in my pocket Dr. Thornwell's written statement of what really were his ideas, and I was urged by many to produce it, but I had reasons for not complying immediately. At length, when the subject had been thoroughly discussed on its own merits, I produced the letter, and had it read by the clerk of Synod. It was listened to with breathless interest. Here is the letter: South Carolina College, Xovember 15, 1854. INlY Dear Brother : 1 was very much mortified that Brother Bishop left this morning without my seeing him, as I had resolved to send you a note by him. It may not be too late yet. What I have to say it this: I cannot consider the call to the Seminary with- out provisions made for an adequate support. I do not expect the salary wliieh I now get, but I will not undertake to live on two thousand dollars. If an adequate support is secured, and it is the impression of the Synod, expressed by a large majority, that I ought to take the theological cliair, and no providential hinderances should interpose, or plain intimations that I ought to stay where I am. I have made up my mind to go. ^Vith much love. Your friend and brother, J. II. Thornw^ell. FIVE YEARS OF FARM LIFE. 219 This commiinication made it manifest to all what was Dr. Thornwell's own. judgment in the case. The vote which followed convinced him what was the impression of the Synod. On the 29th of ISTovember he tendered his resignation of the presidency of the college, but was met hy the trustees, as once before, when called to a church in Baltimore, with the enforcement of the law, which required a year's notice before the resignation could take effect. He was not, therefore, actually released until the 4th of December, 1855, when his successor was elected, and he immediately began his work in the Seminary. Im- mediately, also, Dr. Palmer and I began our effort to raise forty thousand dollars for the Thornwell professorship. We began our work with Georgia, and from the three cities of Augusta, Savannah and Athens, which were all that we visited, we obtained $4,672.50. We proceeded to Alabama, and, from various churches in that State, got $5,264. We went on to Xew Orleans, and there spent several weeks, obtaining $2,865. Finding it necessary to return homeward, Charleston gave us $17,783. From 'South Carolina Presbytery we got $5,448. From Edisto and John's Island we got $4,000. These amounts foot up $40,032.50. These figures I take from my original memoranda, made forty-three years ago, but I will not vouch for their absolute correctness. What we obtained was, some of it, in cash, but chiefly in notes^ hearing interest, and payable in one, two and three years to Andrew Crawford, treas- urer of the board. I have no doubt they were all, or nearly all, paid in due time. We ceased our work when we had got to the forty thousand dollar mark. We might have gone on and obtained further generous subscriptions from churches in Georgia, as well as from Bethel and Harmony Presbyteries, and I cannot, at this long dis- tance of time, explain exactly why we did not pursue that course. The Presbyterians of ]^ew Orleans all fell in love with Dr. Palmer, and I soon began to anticipate what shortly came to pass. At the spring meeting of Charleston Pres- bytery, in 1855, there was presented a very earnest call for him to become their pastor. This was breaking up 220 MY LIFE xYND TIMES. the plan which the Synods of South Carolina and Georgia had laboriously constructed for the Seminary. Accord- ingly, presbytery, after earnest debate, refused to put the call into Dr. Palmer's hand. A second call, from the same church, came before us at our fall meeting, and presby- tery thought it proper, in the circumstances, to refer the question to the S^mod, which met at Columbia. A num- ber of those who, at Anderson in 1853, had opposed Palmer's removal from the pulpit to the Seminary, still maintained their ground, and all these were ready to sus- tain the ISTew Orleans call. On the other hand, some of these very men, viewing, as most important to the inter- ests of our church, Thornwell's, and, with him. Palmer's, transfer to the Seminary, were now anxious to defeat the call from Xew Orleans. Many were the able speeches made, both for and against that call, and, for a long time, the issue was doubtful. Dr. Palmer very candidly and fully explained his position. He was desirous to accept the call, and ^Ji'each the gospel in that great city of the Southwest, but he was still willing, as a year before, to be guided by the Synod, yielding his convictions to their judgment. He was Avell understood on all hands. The chief argument for the call, as many stated it, was "the manifest leadings of Providence" in its favor. It seemed to me that what they called the leadings of Providence were nothing but very natural and very reasonable wishes of certain good people in New Orleans. They knew a good preacher when they heard him, and this opportunity had been several times enjoyed by them. They desired to have him with very great desire, and were determined to make every effort to get him. Other large and impor- tant churches, perhaps to the number of fifteen or twenty, had had the same desire, only they had not pursued the fulfillment of it with such avidity. Was it possible, I asked, that, in all these different cases, "the leadings of Providence" had been perfectly manifest, and yet Divine Providence could not effect its own desired end ? Then, Dr. Thornwell took up this argument from the leadings of Providence, and tore it all to pieces. Pie said Moses might have reasoned that the leadings of Providence were pointing him to the Egyptian throne. He was the FIVE YEAES OF FAF.M LIFE. 221 adopted son of the kino;'s roval daughter. He had every qualification for the place, and, probably, everybody in Egypt was snre of his succeeding to it; but Providence really designed him, and was preparing him, for a very different office. We are not competent to interpret the leadings of Providence. When considered by us most clear in favor of something that we wish, they are, often- times, not the real expression of God's purpose and plan. The word is our only rule, but we need the Holy Spirit to guide us in applying the rule. Even Abraham, when God called him to the sacrifice of Isaac, did not know what really was the divine will, until the very moment when about to put the knife to his son's throat. So, said Dr. Thornwell, Dr. Palmer cannot know what is to be his duty respecting this call, until this Synod's vote on the solemn question before us shall make it known to him. This set the question in its true light before every mem- ber of the body. I rose and asked Dr. Palmer if he would consider it a grievance should his brethren refuse to let him have his manifest preference in this matter. He answered that it had just been well stated, that we were, on this occasion, the appointed exponents of the divine will to him, and he trusted he would feel it no grievance if the divine will were to bring on him a fever. There was immediate silence in the Synod ; every man felt that Palmer's comparison settled the question. The vote was called for, and, by a very large majority, the call was put into his hands and was accepted. Dr. Thornwell was very much aftected as the voting went on. I happened to be sitting by his side. In his characteristic simplicity, and with a mournful tone, he whispered, "I feel as if I were going to a funeral." Then he whispered to me again, "If the vote is for iSTew Orleans, I shall nominate you in his place." I whispered in return, "Oh ! don't do that, for I should not be able to accept." In a little while, the ques- tion of a successor to Dr. Palmer came up, and Thorn- well went straight on and nominated me, and I was elected. I felt very much as I did, when, at the college commencement in 1853, I heard him making certain an- nouncements in Latin of proceedings by the trustees, amongst them, that I had received the degree of Doctor 222 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. of Divinity. I took what he said, on both occasions, as honor put on me by one whose wondrous intellect, accom- panied, as it was, with learning, both profound and va- ried, were never matched by any man I liave personally known. Of course, I did not immediately decline. Thornwell had taken me by surprise. I could not but take time to consider the question. After the Synod had adjourned, whether I declined earlier or later, the matter could not well be mended. The Synod could not well be called together for another election. It would be very expensive, and, perhaps, impossible, to get together at any place, an adequate representation of the whole body. So, therefore, I had time to consider. I began to see very soon how many and serious were the difficulties in my way. I had added other lands to my original purchase. Improvements, numerous and varied, had been com- menced, which had to be finished, and that under my own eye. It would be very difficult to sell my plantation Avithout serious loss, and, to put it under the care of an overseer for eight months in the year, while I should be in Columbia, was objectionable in many respects. But my greatest difficulty I have not jet stated. My brother William's death, in 1853, made it necessary for me to become the guardian of his family, and to take charge of the education of his five young children. I had induced his widow to bring them and live at Pendleton. I could not go and leave them behind. I had to sell her place, and that without any loss. Had I given out publicly that I was compelled to move, without delay, to Cohmibia, I would have been put to great disadvantage as to the sale of her property. Had I committed it to the care of some agent, and gone off to Columbia, it would still have be- come a forced sale, involving loss. Thus I acted under the strong conviction that there was no providential duty that would require this neglect of her interest at my hands. On the other hand, my farm life and outdoor occupa- tions for some years had greatly benefited my sight. I had no wish to continue farming, now that the necessity seemed to have passed away. I had become anxious to return to the proper business of a gospel minister. To CALLED TO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 223 teacli the history and politv of the church would be an occupation much to my taste. If Thornwell desired me as a co-professor, I was much more than willing to stand at his back. So the call I had received was every way very attractive to me. But, just here, I have to state that, during my whole life, I had been obliged, on many important occasions, to disappoint my honored father. He wanted me to go to Germany and become a great scholar, but I felt bound to decline his generous oifers, and become a foreign missionary. When I was obliged to leave my foreign work, I know I disappointed his ex- pectations, although he did not, as I had feared, make any opj)Osition to my becoming a negro missionary in Charleston ; but, on the contrary, he bought for me a fine house to live in. Hardly had he settled me in this nice dwelling than the state of my eyes compelled me to leave Charleston, and the house was thrown on his hands to be disposed of. Very soon he established me on a very desirable farm and dwelling near Pendleton; and here, now, I was going to propose another new and altogether unexpected plan of action ! What else could he think of me than that I was a rolling stone that never would gather any moss ? He was, indeed, very much opposed to this new idea, and so were my brothers and the whole family. It was not possible for me to run counter, very soon, to all the opposition Avhich I met. But I hoped, after some delay, to overcome it all. Yet, as I look back now, over more than forty years, what I should have done was to have declined the call made by the Synod. I was elected in November, 1856. On the 7th of the next month I received from Dr. Girardeau a very urgent letter, giving reasons why I ought to accept the call. It was just such an argument as one, then the negro mission- ary in Charleston, might very naturally employ with the former negro missionary in Charleston whom he had suc- ceeded. It was to impress on me what an opportunity I would have to direct the minds of my classes in the Sem- inary to this great field of negro evangelization, in which we were both so much interested. At the opening of the next year, viz., on the 27th of January, 1857, Dr. Breck- 224 MY LIFE AND TIMES. inridge also writes me from Danville, "I hope you have gone or will go to Columbia; it w^ould take long to tell why — but it seems to me very clear you should go : clear on personal accounts; clear on public accounts; espe- cially clear on Seminary accounts. There has taken place in our church a great reaction as to vital religion and it? true foundations within twenty years; and, of late, that reaction has thrown into our seminaries, for the training of our ministers, a portion of its OAvn force, to which it is of incalculable importance to give a permanent lodg- ment exactly .there. To make this at once efficacious and permanent requires more than one man, more than one frail human existence in each seminary ; while, therefore, no one can expect more from Thornwell than I do, be- cause no one knows more thoroughly how great a work he can do, I feel it to be of great consequence that men like-minded should be with him, to stand in his place if he falls, to work to the same great ends while he abides. As to special facts, I know nothing, but they ought to be wonderfully clear and powerful, as, it seems to me, to keep you from this Avork." Both these letters were very impressive, but, on the 10th of December, 1856, Dr. Thornwell had sent me one which proved much more so. He says, "In relation to yourself, the difficulties which are gathering or have gathered around you, only render your duty the more manifest. Your external call was clear and unambiguous ; it was, indeed, very remarkable. The internal one must be equally obvious, if you will only reflect upon the state of your mind beforehand. You wanted the door open, and you professed a willingness to make any sacrifices to enter it. . God has opened it and put you to the trial. He has thought you worth trying, and, therefore, father and brother and sister are permit- ted to rise up against you, to give you the opportunity of showing that his voice is louder in your ears than theirs. The case to me is very plain, and T shall really trendile for you if you decline. Your mouth must be shut against any prayer, hereafter, for a field of ministerial labor. God may say, 'I called and you refused.' " If, in any way, it were proper to speak of myself in connection with the three "mighties," Farel, Calvin and Thornwell, I CALLED TO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 225 luio-ht say Thornwell's expostulation with me and liis awful reference to the ear of the Almighty being shut against any future prayer of mine, terrified me as much as Farel's denunciation of God's wrath against Calvin, if he did not immediately begin to preach at Geneva, ter- rified the reformer, and at once began to control his con- duct. I certainly did want to be set free from my en- tanglements, and, very mercifully, the day of my deliver- ance was nigh. A hint was somehow conveyed to me that Mrs. John C. Calhoun, widow of our great Senator, admired the place of my sister, in the immediate neighborhood of which she had just purchased a cottage, and had come to live there. I determined at once to ride over and see if I could sell the property to her. The sun was setting as I mounted my horse, and, if I ever did pray in my life, I besought the Master, as I rode along, that he would prosper me on my errand, and so enable me to obey his providential call. Mrs. Calhoun admitted that she liked the place, but ob- jected to the price I asked. I explained to her that I was in such a position of responsibility as absolutely prevented my reducing it at all. I told her the original price of the house and seventy-five acres of land, with the repairs and improvements that I had made, had cost my sister six thousand and four hundred dollar?, and that I was bound to obtain exactly that sum to a cent. She felt the force of this announcement, and only replied, "But what shall I do with my cottage ?" I asked her what was the price of that cottage, with the acres attached to it, and she told me twenty-five hundred dollars. I said immediately, "Mrs. Calhoun, I will take your cottage, at that price, as part payment of my sister's property." So much was set- tled then. I rode home thankful and rejoicing. IText day I rode to the village and sold Mrs. Calhoun's cottage for twenty-five hundred dollars to Mr. John T. Sloan. The necessary papers and securities were all at once ar- ranged, and every installment was paid by each party, with interest, on the very day it became due, Mr. John Lorton acting as Mrs. Calhoun's agent. I was once more a free man. My father said to my brother Robert, "John managed that affair very well." Far better than this, it 226 MY LIFE AND TIMES. was evident that God had not yet slnit his ear to my prayers. I repaired, without delay, to Cohimhia, and be- gan my work in the Seminary, continuing it till the vaca- tion in May. The following month I purchased a house,^ and, at the close of the vacation, I moved my sister's fam- ily, together with mine, to Columbia. CHAPTEE IX. Literary Work, '\Vritinc4, Editixg^ Publishing. — Seminary Life. — Calvin^s Institutes. THE first religious newspaper published in Charles- ton, that I remember, was the Charleston Observer^ which began to be published somewhere about 1825, though I have an indistinct impression that there was one which preceded this. The editor of the Charleston Ob- server was the Rev. Benjamin Gildersleeve, a strong man and a sound Presbyterian, whose son is the eminent Pro- fessor Gildersleeve of Johns Hopkins University. The editor became quite prominent and very useful in the Old and Xew School controversy. He had, at one time, also, a little tilt with John England, the famous Roman Cath- olic bishop of Charleston, in which he came oif quite vic- torious. Here it occurs to me to introduce a laughable incident of his useful life. He opened, at one time, a private school for young ladies, which he kept on his own premises. One of my sisters, now seventy-six years old, was a pupil, and she remembers seeing the eminent pro- fessor, then a small lad, come in to recite his Latin lesson. There was a big round table sitting in the middle of the school-room. Basil either did not know or would not study his lesson, and the Rev. Benjamin rose to chastise the lad, who ran round the table, and his father after him in successful pursuit. All this in the presence of a lot of young ladies who, probably, sympathized more with the boy than with their preceptor. But, behold! what grand results have followed that strict parental discipline. Here, now, is both comfort for a boy coming under faith- ful discipline, and encouragement for a teacher faithful enough to administer it. After a long and successful editorial career in Charles- ton, Mr. Gildersleeve was induced to remove to Rich- mond, Va., and become editor of the Watchman and Ob- server. 228 my life and times. "The Southekx Peesbyteriax Weekly/'' After Mr. Gildersleeve's departure from Charleston, the Synod of Georgia, in 1846, determined to issue a suc- cessor to the Observer. Early in 1847, at a meeting in Milledgeville, the Rev. Washington Baird was appointed editor, and the above mentioned name chosen for the paper. The first number appeared at Milledgeville on the 25th of August. It was removed to Charleston at the end of 1852, and the first number from that oflSce was issued January 5, 1853, Rev. Washington Baird still its editor, Baird and Frazer, proprietors, W. Y. Paxton, publisher. On April 6, 1854, the proprietorship was changed, and it passed into the hands of a considerable number of gentlemen in the different Presbyterian churches of the city; Rev. J. L. Kirkpatriek, D. D., edi- tor, and Rev. Edwin Cater, assistant editor. Mr. Cater withdrew December 7, 1854, and in July, 1857, Rev. B. E. Lanneau took his place. Dr. Kirkpatriek, being pastor of the Glebe Street church in Charleston, would not be- come editor Avithout the assured help of some regular con- tributors, and the writer became one of these from May 4, 1854. Dr. Kirkpatrick's editorship continued until the close of 1857. From that time the Rev. H. B. Cunning- ham became its editor and proprietor. From him it was purchased by the writer, and removed to Columbia, the first number appearing ISTovember 1, 1860. The Rev. A. A. Porter became its editor, and was to be supported by the paper, and later the Rev. James Woodrow under- took to look after the accounts and finances, and for this service was admitted as part proprietor. Dr. Thornwell became a frequent contributor, and, by his aid and that of others, its eminent editor soon gave it a high reputation and a wide circulation. We made no money, however, and the war between the States coming on soon, it was kept up with great difficulty, until the burning of Colum- bia by William Tecumseh Sherman gave it a death blow. Dr. Woodrow had the courage to revive the paper in 1865, overcoming many and very great difficulties. His brother-in-law. Rev. Dr. Joseph R. Wilson, and Jesse A. Ansley, Esq., of Augusta, with the ^^Titer, became his to the church of tliis ministry a])pears in this, that by it (/hrist fills all things to his church. By it the church is edified and grows. It is more useful to her than meat and drink and light to mortal life. They plot ruin who would abolish this order and government. The Scriptures set forth the dignity of this ministry thus, '"'How licautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him tliat bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace ;" "Ye are the light of the world and the salt of the earth;" "Who heareth you heareth me." For the enlightenment of Cornelius an angel is sent from heaven, but only to tell him to send to Joppa for Peter. Similarly, when Christ appears to Paul at the gate of Damascus, instead of in- structing him with his own voice, he tells him to go to the city and wait until a man named Ananias shall come and tell him what to do. The Pekso^^s Fulfilling Chukcti Offices. These are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Of these only the two last are ordinary and permanent. The others were raised up at the beginning by the Lord, and still are raised up as becomes necessary. The apostles were men sent forth to preach to all the world, and lay everywdiere the foun; the nninnor and mo(k' of her govern- ment. Lest factions and tnrbnlent men shonld rnsh in, it was expressly provided that every church officer must assume office only after election and call (Hebrews v. 4; Jeremiah xvii. 16). First, he must be duly called, and then he must volimtarily accept the call and enter on its duties. Thus Pa\il frequently asserts his call and his fidelity to it. If so great a minister of Christ as Paul needed to be called, how much more all ordinary men. The subject of the call Calvin treats under four heads, viz., who are to be appointed ministers, in what way, by whom, and Math what ceremony. He treats here of the external call by the church, and says nothing- of the secret call of God which is so necessary. What persons are to be elected bishops Paul tells us in 1 Timothy iii. 1-7 ; Titus i. 7-9. The substance is, such as are of sound doctrine and holy life, with no notorious defect as would disgrace the ministry. The description of elders and deacons is altogether similar. In what way are they to be elected ? Here Calvin refers, not to the rite of choosing, but, as the business is most serious and important, to the religious forms to be observed in the election. Hence the faithful observed prayer and fasting when they elected presbyters, implor- ing from God, with anxious solicitude, the spirit of wis- dom and discernment. By whom are ministers to be chosen ? The apostles, being extraordinary officers, were appointed by our Lord himself. When the apostles desired to replace Judas, they did not absolutely choose, but only named, two men, and then cast lots, thus leaving the decision to the Lord. Thus Paul claims that he was made an apostle, not by men, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, and to prove it he could show the insignia of his apostleship. "]3ut," continues Calvin, having in mind the fanatical Anabaptists, "no sober person will deny that the designa- tion of ordinary ministers is to be by man, as numerous scriptures teach. Even this extraordinary minister, the Apostle Paul, is subjected to the discipline of an ecclesi- astical call thus, 'Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whei'cunto I have called them' (Acts xiii. 2) : for CALVIN^S IJSrSTITUTES. 245 the Lord first declares that he has appointed Paul apostle to the Gentiles, and yet afterwards requires the church to set him apart. The same thing we may see in the election of Matthias.'' We must now consider whether the election of a min- ister is by the whole church, or only by his colleagues and the elders who preside over discipline, or whether he can be constituted by the authority of one man. Those who say by one man (that is, a diocesan bishop *) allege Titus's ordination of elders in every city and Timothy's laying hands on men. But neither Titus reigned at Crete nor Timothy at Ephesus. They only presided in elections by the peo]ile. Roman historians often tell how the consul who held the comitia elected the new magistrates when he only received the suffrages presiding over the election by the peo]ile. It was in this way that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church. They selected two, but the whole l^ody, as was the custom of Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the two they wished to have. It is not credible that Paul conceded to Timothy and Titus more than he assumed to himself. We must not interpret the above passages so as to infringe upon the common right and liberty of the church. Cyprian is here quoted by Calvin to sustain this view. Indeed, we see that, by command of the Lord, the Levitical priest must be brought in view of tlie people before consecration. 'Nor was Matthias enrolled among the apostles, nor the seven deacons elected in any other way except at the sight and aiiproval of the people. Other pastors, however, ought to preside over the election, lest any error should be committed by the general body, either through levity or bad passion or tumult. Calvin is strong against the one- man-power of rule. It remains to be considered with what ceremony min- isters are to be appointed. It is simply with the laying on of hands. Thus the Jews devoted anything. Thus Jacob, when he blessed the two sons of Joseph. Thus our Lord, when he blessed infants. Thus the Jews laid hands on their sacrifices. This simple rite signified that the *See Chap. IV., Sees. 10, 11 ; Chap. V., Sees. 2, 3; also, Calvin on Acts vi. 3; and Luther, torn. II., p. 374. 246 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. apostles devoted to the Lord him whom they admitted to the ministry. They observed the same ceremony in con- ferring the visible gifts of the Spirit. There is no fixed precept for us to lay on hands; we only follow the ex- ample of the apostles. It is certainly useful by such a symbol to commend to the people the dignity of the min- istry ; and let him who is ordained with such a ceremony always remember that he is not his own, but devoted to the special service of the Lord. This ceremony of the Lord's own appointment cannot be a vain thing. The fourth chapter treats of the primitive church and church government before the papacy. First, it describes government in the primitive church. Sec. 1-10. Xext, the formal ordination of bishoi:>s and ministers, Sec. 10-15. Government in the Primitive Church. Calvin will be found very charitable to the course of things in the primitive church, whose canons, he says, contain almost nothing that was foreign to the sacred scriptures. His object being to draw a very strong con- trast between that church and the church of the jDapacy, he apologizes, as far as he can with a good conscience, for every early departure from the ways of the apostolic church. We should bear in mind that it is these early departures, which he called slight, which led the way to the more dreadful errors of the Romish church. He says they were sincerely desirous to do right, and they did not go much astray. For, he says, as we have shown that in scripture there are three kinds of ministers (triplices min- istros), so the early church distinguished all the ministry she had into three orders ; for from the order of the presbyters a part w^ere chosen to be pastors and doctors, and to the other part was committed the censure of morals and discipline. To the deacons belonged the care of the poor and the dispensing of alms. "Readers and Acolytes" did not signify distinct offices, but were only persons in training for the service of the church. All, therefore, to -whom the office of teaching was com- mitted they called presbyters ; and in each city these presbyters elected one to whom they ga\-c the title of Calvin's institutes. 247 bishop. The bishop, however, was not so superior in honor and dignitv as to have dominion over his colleagues, but only to be like a president in an assembly, to bring matters before them, collect the opinions and preside. And the ancients themselves confess that this practice was introduced by human arrangement, according to the exi- gency of the times. Thus Jerome, on the Epistle to Titus, Chapter L, says, ^'A bishop is the same as a presbyter; and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Cephas, churches were governed by a connnon council of presbyters. After- wards, that the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the whole charge was devolved upon one. Therefore, as presbyters know that, by the custom of the church, they are subject to him who presides, so let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than in consequence of our Lord's appointment, and that these must rule the church together." * We see evidently that what the author has especially in mind, as he describes the primitive church, is to show how it differed from the papal system, which began so early to be developed, even as Paul says, the mystery of iniquity was already working. Accordingly, we find Cal- vin saying at the beginning of Section II., "that all those to whom the office of teaching was committed they called presbyters." We know that they also called by that name all to whom was committed "the censure of manners and discipline," that is, all the ruling elders. For so Paul says in 1 Timothy v. 17, and so Calvin himself says in the first section of this chapter. There were others, then, wdiom they called presbyters, besides those to whom the office of teaching was committed. The reformer does not stop to make this plain, but what he has in mind is simply to show that presbyters from the beginning were not inferior to bishops ; for in fact "presbyter" and "bishop" in the scripture are interchangeable terms. It is possible, however, that in the form of expression used by Calvin in this case he means to intimate that, in the primitive church, through the ambition of the * The Latin says, "Et in commune debere ecclesiam regere." 248 MY T>IFE AND TIMES. teachers, the name presbyter was soon confined to them, and the ruling elder early disappears, till in the sixteenth century he is exhumed by Calvin. Calvin proceeds to say that in another place Jerome shows how ancient the custom was of the presbyters ap- pointing one of themselves to be bishop. Jerome says that "at Alexandria, from the time of Mark the evangelist as far down as llcraclas and Dionysius" (middle of the third century) presbyters thus made the bishop to bo of a higher rank than themselves. The reader will observe in what Jerome says, how soon the episcopate is developed over the presbyterate. It has already come to be a higher rank. Calvin continues, "Each city, therefore, had a college of presbyters, consisting of pastors and teachers. For they all performed for the people that office of teaching, exhort- ing and correcting, which Paul enjoins on bishops (Titus i. 9) ; and that they might leave a seed behind them, they made it their business to train younger men who had devoted themselves to the sacred warfare. Each presby- tery {collcfjia politiae), as I have said, merely to preserve order and peace, was under one bishop, who, though he excelled others in dignity, was subject to the meeting of the brethren. But if the district which was under his bishopric was too large for him to be able to discharge all the duties of bishop, presbyters were distributed over it in certain places, to act as his substitutes in minor mat- ters. These were called chorepiscopi — rural bishops." Calvin proceeds to say that the bishop, as well as pres- byters, was in the primitive church required to administer the word and sacraments. Here evidently the reformer is striking at the Roman bishops, whose oflfice was not preaching, but administering the affairs of a whole dis- trict. It soon became necessary, as we have seen, to have rural bishops appointed to assist him, for he has quit the word and sacraments and become just an exaggerated ruling elder. Calvin continues, "Only at Alexaiulria, where Arius had troubled the church, was it enactee, under the bishops, the stewards of the poor. Probably at first subdeacons assisted the deacons in the management of the poor. Archdeacons were afterwards appointed as the extent of the revenues increased ; and Jerome says they already existed in his day. Then these took cliarge of the revenues, possessions and furniture, and daily of- ferings. We find Gregory saying to the Archdeacon Soli- tanus that the blame would be his if any of the goods of the church perished. Then the reading of the word to the people, and the giving of exhortation, was allowed them, and afterwards the giving of the cup in the sacred supper. This was done to make them respect their office, as being not a secular stewardship, but a spiritual function, dedi- cated to God. Hence we may judge what kind of distribution was made of ecclesiastical goods. You will learn, both from the decrees of synods and from other ancient writers, that all the possessions of the church were held to be the patri- mony of the poor. Accordingly, it is ever and anon sounded in the ears of bishops and of deacons : Remember that you are not handling your own, but what belongs to the poor ; if you dishonestly conceal or dilapidate it, you will be guilty of blood . ITence they are to distribute with the greatest care, as in the sight of God, and without re- spect of persons. Hence, also, by Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and other like bishops, those graver obtesta- Calvin's institutes. 251 tions in which they assert their integrity before the peo- ple. But since it is just in itself, and also sanctioned by the Lord, that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel, and since some presbyters in that age had become poor by consecrating all they had to God, aliment was afforded to the ministry, and yet the poor not neglected. Yet it was provided that the ministers were to live fru- gally and not in luxury. "For," says Jerome, ''those clerics who have a sufficient patrimony commit sacrilege if they accept what belongs to the poor." But when at length, through cupidity and the depraved desires of some, bad examples had arisen, they had to frame canons correcting these evils, dividing the revenues of the church into four parts. They assigned one part to the clergy, a second to the poor, a third to the repair of churches and other edifices, and a fourth to the poor strangers ; for although other canons attribute this last part to the bishop, it is not meant to be for his own use, but to enable him to use the hospitality which Paul enjoins. So is this canon interpreted by Gelasius and by Gregory. Gregory especially so explains it. Moreover, what was spent in the adorning of sacred things {in ornatum sacrorum) was at first very trifling; and even when the church had become somewhat more wealthy, all the money that was collected in such things (illic) was reserved for the poor when some great neces- sity should arise. Evidently Calvin here refers to silver and gold vessels, etc. He thus continues, "Cyril, when a famine prevailed in the province of Jerusalem, and the want could not otherwise be supplied, took the vessels and robes and sold them for the support of the poor Acacius, Bishop of Amida, when famine was destroying the Per- sians, assembled the clergy and delivered this noble ad- dress, 'Our God has no need of chalices or salvers, for he neitlier eats nor drinks.' Then he melts down the plate, and gave food and ransom, to the sufferers. Jerome also tells how Exuperius, Bishop of Tholouse, though he car- ried the body of the Lord in a wicker basket and his blood in a glass, suffered no poor man to be hungry. What I said of Acacius, Ambrose tells of himself. When the Arians assailed Ambrose for breakins; down the sacred 252 MY LIFE AND TIMES. vessels for the ransom of captives, he demonstrated to them at great length how the sacraments stand in no need of gold, and their true honor is in the ransom of captives. In a word, we see the exact truth of what he elsewhere says, viz., that whatever the church then possessed was the revenue of the needy, and that a bishop has nothing but Avhat belongs to the poor. We have thus reviewed all the ecclesiastical offices of the primitive church. The others spoken of by ecclesias- tical writers were just preparations for office. Those good men thought it wise to have in training young per- sons who should succeed them, having dedicated them- selves, with the consent and authority of their parents, to this life. Their general name was that of clerks, I could wish that some more appropriate name had been given them, for this appellation had its origin in error, or at least improper feeling. Here the reformer seems to pass condemnation by inference upon the names clergy and clergymen, terms wdiich certainly never should be used by thoughtful protestants. ''The whole church," says Calvin, ''is called by Peter (1 Peter v. 3) the Lord's clerus, that is, his inheritance and portion, which name should not be given to any class of church officers. But the in- stitution itself was most sacred, and valuable as a means of training up young ministers. First of all, they en- trusted them with the opening and shutting of the church doors, and so were called Ostiarii. Kext came the Aco- lytes, who were followers of the bishop, always attending him wherever he w^ent, that there might arise no suspicion, since a witness was always present. Then there were 'readers,' Avho were to stand up and read the word to the people among whom they were to know and be known, and learn not to be ashamed when afterwards they were ad- mitted to be subdeacons." Ordination of Bishops and Ministers. As to the first two points, viz., the persons to be elected, and the manner of their election, the early church fol- lowed the apostles, meeting solemnly for the election, with earnest prayer to God, with examination into the life and doctrine of the candidates, only sometimes they CAT.VIN^S INSTITUTES. 253 were more strict than Paul (1 Timothy iii. 2-8), and especially, in process of time, they exacted celibacy. As to the third point, viz., who should appoint the minister? they departed from the apostolic rule, for anciently none were admitted without the consent of the whole people. Hence Cyprian apologizes for having appointed a reader without consultino- the whole church, on the ground that he was to have a long probation, and only to an unimpor- tant office. Afterwards, in other orders also, except the episcopate, the people left the choice to the bishop and the presbyters, unless where new presbyters were appointed to parishes, in which case the express consent of the in- habitants of the place behooved to be given. ]^or is it strange that the people should be indifferent to their own rights as to sub-deacons, for only after a long probation could he become deacon, and then, after another long pro- bation, presbji;er ; for none were promoted who had not for many years been constantly under the eye of the peo- ple. There were also many canons for punishing their faults, so that the church need not be burdened with bad presbyters or deacons. Indeed, in the case of presbyters, the consent of the citizens was always required, as is at- tested by the canon ascribed to Anacletus. Moreover, all ordinations were at stated periods of the year, so that none might creep in stealthily. As to bishops, the people long retained their right to prevent any one being intruded on them. So the Council of Antioch ordained. Leo I. also carefully confirmed this. Hence various passages like this, ''Let him be elected whom the clergy and the people, at least the ma- jority, demand." Very careful were the holy fathers that this liberty of the people should be preserved, as appears in the case of Nectar ius, whom a general council at Con- stantinople would not ordain without the approbation of the whole clergy and people, as is testified by their letter to the Roman Synod. So, when a bishop would name his own successor, he must get the consent of the whole people. Augustine not only gives an example of this, but the very form, in the nomination of Eradius. Theodoret, after relating that Peter, who was appointed by Athanasius his successor, had the acclamation of the 254 MY LIFE AND TIMES. whole people, also adds that the sacerdotal order rati- fied it. Indeed, it was decreed bv the Council of Laodicea, and I admit on the best grounds, that ordination should not be left to the crowd ; for it seldom happens that many heads can settle a matter well. It generally holds true, "Incertum scindi stiidia in contraria vulgus" — opposing wishes rend the fickle crowd. Accordingly, first, the clergy alone selected, then presented the man to the mag- istrate, or senate, or chief men. These, after deliberation, put their signature to the election if approved ; otherwise they chose another. The matter was then laid before the multitude, who, though not bound l)y all this, were less able to act tumultuously. Or, if the matter began with the multitude, the wishes of the people having been thus heard, the clergy at length elected. Leo said, "The wishes of the citizens, the testimonies of the people, the choice of the honorable, the election of the clergy, are to be waited for." Thus, all that the Council of Laodicea de- signed was that the clergy and rulers were not to allow themselves to be carried away by the rash multitude, but rather, by their prudence and gravity, to repress, if need- ful, their foolish desires. This mode of election was still in force in the time of Gregory (A. D. 590). Whenever a new bishop was to be elected, he would consult the clergy, the magistrates and the people, and also the governor. When one Constantius was made bishop of Milan, but, because of the insurgence of the barbarians of the north, many Milanese had fled to Genoa, Gregory held that the election was not lawful until these refugees were called together and gave their consent. "Indeed," says Calvin, *'not five hundred years ago. Pope Xicholas fixed the election of a pontiff thus: first, the cardinals must precede ; then the clergy, and then the people of Rome." And then he recites the de- cree of Leo, lately quoted by me. But if the election was to be out of the city, his order was that some of the people must go and ratify. The suffrage of the emperor, as far as I can understand, was required only at Rome and Con- stantinople, being seats of empire. In Gratian's De- cretals we read that canonical elections are not to be Calvin's institutes. 255 vacated at the word of a king. Still, it is one thing to de- prive the church of her right of deciding an election, and quite another thing to assign due honor to a king or em- peror. We see how far Calvin's conservatism carries him. "It remains now," he says, ''to speak of the ceremony of ordination or consecration in the ancient church. The Latins called it by those names, but the Greeks give it two names, the one signifying the lifting up of hands in voting, the other the laying on of hands upon the head. A decree of the Council of l>lice (in the fourth century) requires the metropolitans and all the bishops of the prov- ince to be present ; but if some were necessarily hin- dered, at least three must attend, and the absent must signify assent by letter. But strict examination into doc- trine and life must precede ordination. It appears from Cyprian's words that of old the ordination took place at the same time as the election, so that the presence of bishops might prevent any disorder by the crowd in the matter of their election." Yet a diiferent custom gradually gained ground ; for the elected began to go to the metropolitan, to get ordina- tion by him. Gradually a still worse custom prevailed, owing to the increased authority of the Romish See, which was for all the bishops of Italy to go to Rome for ordination. Thus only a few cities maintained their an- cient rights, for example, Milan. The only form used was the laying on of hands. I do not read of any other ceremony, except that the bishop wore some dress to distinguish him from the other pres- bvters. Presbyters and deacons also received laying on of hands, but each bishop, with his college of presbyters, or- dained his o^^^l presbyters. The same act was performed by all, but because the bishop presided, it came at last to be called his ordination. Here, then, is still to be seen, in this description by Calvin, the remains of the original ordination of ruling elders by the pastor and the other elders, and how gradually prelacy came to take the place of scriptural presbytery. The eighth chapter introduces the third part of Cal- vin's subject, viz.. Church Power, as existing either in 256 ISIY LIP^E AND TIMES. individual l)ishops, or in councils, whether provincial or general. Nothing is said here about particular councils, such as church sessions or presbyteries, but he will speak of them in the next chapter, and show that thej have the very same kind of authority as the higher courts of the church, or even as to what he means by the general coun- cil. He says, "I speak of spiritual power, such as belongs properly to the church, and which consists either in doc- trine, or in jurisdiction, or in enacting laws. As to the subject of doctrine there are two divisions, viz., the authority of delivering dogmas and of interpreting them.'' Calvin thus, at the very outset of this chapter on power, makes the distinction between several power and joint power; for church power in one form belongs to indi- vidual ministers and elders, but another form of it is con- fined to assemblies of church rulers. He pauses here to remind the reader that church power, whatever we may say about it, must always be exercised for edification and not for destruction. To use it lawfully we must remem- ber that we are only servants of Christ, and also servants of his people. ISTow, the only way to edify the church is to magnify Christ, and always hold him up as its only Lord ; for not of any other, but only of Christ, was it said, "Hear him." Ecclesiastical power is not, then, to be malignantly * adorned (maligtie ornanda), but is to be confined within certain limits, as described by prophets and apostles, so as not to be drawn hither and thither at the caprice of men ; for, conceding to men all the power they would like to assume, it is easy to see it must soon de- generate into tyranny. Thus Calvin here enunciates several principles which are very dear to all Presbyterians. The first is, that church power is all spiritual. Secular things, j)olitical matters, and scientific questions, arc all beyond its sphere. Another is, it is never for destruction, but always only for edification. It acts always in love and for good to the oifender. It inflicts no pains or penalties except such as are spiritual. A third one is, it is never magisterial, but * I so translate this word on the authority of Facciolati. CALVIN S INSTITUTES. 257 only spiritual, and by the authority and for the honor of Christ. When Calvin divides the power of doctrine into de- livery of dogmas and the interpretation of them, he sets forth by the first what individual bishops may do, as well as councils ; and when he speaks of interpreting dogmas, I think he has in view especially the duty of applying the principles of truth to various questions that come before •courts of the church. In like manner, Gillespie distinguishes between the power of order and of jurisdiction. The first is what an individual ofiicer may do by himself, the second, what he ■can only do when joined with similar officers. The power of doctrine is administered severally when ruling bishops teach privately and from house to house. The teaching bishop administers it both privately and publicly. Thus both classes of elders have this several power of doctrine. Gillespie calls this their power of order. But power of jurisdiction, and also of legislation, belong only to the courts of the church, and these are their joint power. We recognize no one-man power of making law or of applying power in jurisdiction. (See Chapter XL, Section vi.) Coming now to the authority of individual bishops, or presbyters, to deliver dogmas, Calvin says this authority is not given to themselves, but to their office. As usual, he is in this chapter continually contrasting scriptural in- stitutions and officers with those of the Romish church. He says, "The authority and dignity of church officers, whether priests, or prophets, or apostles, or successors of apostles, is not given to themselves, but to their office ; or, to speak more plainly, it is given to the word, for they <;an only teach or give interpretations in the name of the Lord. Before he brings them forward to speak to the people he always instructs them what to speak, lest they should speak anything but his own word. This is shown in the case of Moses and the Levitical priests. Accord- ingly, when the people embraced Moses' doctrine, they are said to have believed the Lord and his servant Moses. The priests, too, who under the severest sanctions were not to be despised, are said to be only messengers of the Lord. It is said he made his covenant with Levi, that 258 MY LIFE AND TIMES. the law of truth might be in his mouth ; also that the priests' lips should keep knowledge. Therefore, if the priest would be heard, let him faithfully deliver the com- mands which he has received from his Maker." (Exodus iii. 4; Deut. xvii. 9; Exodus xiv. []1; Malachi ii. 4, 6; Deut. xvii. 11.) The same thing is true as to the prophets. Ezekiel is elegantly described as a watchman who is to hear at the mouth of the Lord and give warning (Ezekiel iii. IT). In Jeremiah we read, ''The jirophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream ; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully" (Jeremiah xxiii. 28). Surely this is the law to all. I^one is to speak except what he has heard from the Lord ; everji:hing else is called "chaff," while the word of the Lord is wheat. The prophets continually speak of "the word of the Lord," "the burden of the Lord." Isaiah (vi. 5) says his lips are unclean, and Jeremiah (i. 0) calls himself a child, as long as they are speaking their own language, but as soon as they became the organs of the Spirit their lips were holy and their words pure. After strict charges given not to speak except at his mouth, there are conferred upon them great powers and illustrious titles. They are set over nations to pull down and to build up (Jeremiah i. 9, 10). _ To the apostles are given distinguished titles, "Light," "Salt," "Binders and Loosers" ; but they tell ns their sole power is to speak his commands faithfully. But, besides Moses and the priests, and the prophets and the apostles, he that is above all gives us an example, by con- descending to take on him the same rule. "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." The power of the church, therefore, is limited to the word of the Lord. But although the word is our only rule, and Christ our only Teacher, yet the methods of teaching and learning, from the beginning down to our times, have been various. Onr Saviour says, '"'No man knoweth the Father but he ta whom the Son will reveal him;" all, therefore, from the beginning, who attain to the knowledge of God were taught by the Son himself. From this fountain Adam, !Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob drew all the heavenly CALVIN''s INSTITUTES. 259 doctrine wliicli they possessed. From the same drew all the prophets all their heavenly oracles. But the mode was different ; for to the patriarchs he gave secret revela- tions, accompanied, however, with such signs or miracles as convinced them it was God who spoke. These revela- tions they handed down to posterity, who, by the inward teaching'of God's Spirit, knew that the doctrine was of heaven and not of earth. Afterwards God gives to his church a more illustrious form, by bestowing on her his written word; then this becomes what the priests must teach the people (Malachi ii. 7). This was the law, and nothing to be added to it or taken from it. 'Next come the prophets, speaking new oracles from God, flowing nevertheless out of the law, and having constant respect to it. As respects doctrine, prophets were just interpreters of the law, adding nothing to it, although they spoke predictions of future events. With this exception, all they said was in exposition of the law. Then afterwards, the Lord had prophecy committed to writing. There were also historical details written by prophets, but dictated by the Holy Spirit. I include the Psalms among the prophecies, being also by inspiration. Thus the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms and Histories made up the word of the Lord, binding on the Old Testa- ment church ; nor could they turn either to the right hand or to the left from this, the word of the Lord. This is gathered from the celebrated passage in Malachi iv. -i, where they are enjoined to remember the law until should come the preaching of the gospel ; thus restraining them from all adventitious doctrines or departing in the least degree from the path pointed out by Moses ; for the rea- son why David so magnificently extols the law in Psalms xix. and cxix. was in order that the Jews meanwhile might not long for any extraneous aid, all perfection being included in the law. Last of all appears the incarnate wisdom of God, un- folding to us all that the human mind can comprehend or ought to think of the Father. The Sun of Kighteousness having risen, we have now the noon-dav of truth. God, at sundry times and in divers manners, having spoken to us by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us 260 MY LIFE AXD TI:MES. by his Son. This, then, is God's last and eternal testi- mony. The whole period, from the appearance of Christ down to the judgment day, is called the last hour, the last times, the last days ; therefore, we are to frame no new doctrine for ourselves, nor receive any devised by others. The Son is appointed our sole Teacher in the solemn words spoken from heaven ; hear him. Indeed, what can be desired or expected by man when the Word of Life has appeared and explained himself ? Every mouth should be stopped when once he has spoken, for in him are "hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians ii. 3.) Therefore, let this be a sure axiom: Xothing else is to be held (habendum esse Dei verhinn ) as a wnrd of God, to which place is to be given in the church, unless, tirst, it be contained in the law and the prophets, and then in the apostolic writings, and the only right method of teaching in the church is according to the prescription and rule of his word. (The reader can see here the doctrine formally set forth by Calvin, that nothing is projier in the worship of God unless it has a divine right to be there.) Here, says Calvin, we also infer that nothing else was permitted to the apostles than to the prophets, viz., to expound the ancient scriptures, and show that what they contained was fulfilled in Christ ; and to do even this they required to have the spirit of Christ. For his command to them was, "Go, teach whatsoever I have commanded." Else- where he twice repeats, "Be not ye called Rabbi ; for one is your Master, even Christ." And then he promises to give them the Spirit of Truth to guide them into all truth. Accordingly, Peter, from the mouth of his Master, commands, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" ; that is, speak nothing but the command- ments of God, and always boldly, as with authority from God. Thus we are to banish from the church of the faith- ful all inventions of the human mind, no matter from what head proceeding, so that only the pure word of God shall remain ; and to discard all the decrees or fictions of men (whatever be their rank), that only the decrees of God may remain. These are the weapons of our warfare, CAJA'i:s's IXSTITUTES. 261 wliich are not carnal, but mighty through God. Such is the supreme power with which pastors — called by whatso- ever name — are invested, namely, to dare all boldly for the word of God ; compelling all ranks, from the highest to the lowest, to yield and obey its majesty; trusting to its power alone to build up the house of God, and over- throw the house of Satan ; feeding the sheep and chasing away the wolves; instructing and exhorting the docile; accusing, rebuking, and subduing the rebellious and petu- lant; binding and loosing; in fine, if need be, to thunder and to lighten {fulgurent denique, si opus est, ac fulmi- nent) ; but all in the word of God. Ihere is this differ- ence, however, between the apostles and their successors : they were the sure and authentic amanuenses of the Spirit, hence their writings are the oracles of God, w^hile their successors are only to teach what is delivered in the holy Scriptures. It does not now belong, therefore, to faithful ministers to coin any new doctrine, but only to adhere to those doctrines to which all without exception are made subject. This applies not only to individuals, but to the whole church. Paul was apostle to the Corin- thians, yet declares he had no dominion over their faith. If Paul dared not, who will now dare arrogate to himself any such dominion ? But it will be said, that with regard to the whole church the case is different. I answer that Paul meets the objection when he says that faith comes by hearing, that is, by hearing God's written word, and that only and alone. Hence there is no place left for any word of man. True faith in God's word will have strength enough to stand intrepid and invincible against Satan, the machinations of hell and the whole world. This strength is to be found only in the word of God. Here, then, is a rule of universal application — God de- prives man of the power of producing any new doctrine, in order that he alone may be our Master in spiritual teaching, as he alone is true, and can neither lie nor de- ceive. This rule applies not less to the whole church than to every individual believer. The ninth chapter treats of councils and their author- ity; that is to say, of the assemblies of ecclesiastical rulers, whether provincial or general. The former an- 262 MY LIFE AND TIMES. swer to the General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church and of other Protestant bodies ; but the General Council of the papists falsely claims universal authority over the whole church. In this chapter, therefore, Calvin first discusses the authority of councils or assemblies in delivering dogmas (Sec. 1-7). The errors of certain general councils discussed in Sections 8-12 will be passed over and Sections 13 and 11 taken up, wherein is dis- cussed the power of councils or assemblies over the inter- pretation of scripture. Calvin at the outset explains the zeal of Rome in mag- nifying church power, as due entirely to their wish to exalt the Pontiff and his conclave, on w'hom they bestow all they can extort. He professes the hearty veneration which he feels for the ancient councils, and would have all hold them in due honor ; but a limit must be set to this lest Christ be dishonored. It is his right to preside over all assemblies, and he will not share the honor with any man. IvTow, he presides only when he governs the whole assembly by his word and Spirit. Again, in attributing to councils less than is claimed for them by Rome, it is not that he is afraid of them, they being against us and for Rome, because he is amply provided from the scrip- tures with the means not only of sustaining his o"uti doctrine, but also of overthrowing the whole papacy; though, if the case required it, ancient councils furnish us with what might even be sufficient for both purposes, Now the scriptural authority of assemblies is found in these words, ^'Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."" But this promise is just as applicable to any particular meeting as to universal councils. The important part is the condi- tion— "in my name." To say that any council Avas at- tended by thousands of bishops will little avail, nor can we believe that such a numerous council is guided by the Sj)irit, unless assembled in the name of Christ, since it is as possible for the wicked and dishonest to conspire against Christ as for good and honest lushops to meet in his name. We have clear proof of this in many of their councils. I only deny that they assemble in the name of Christ who, disreo-ardine; his command to add nothing to Calvin's institutes. 263 and take nothing from his word, determine everything at their o^vn pleasure, and who, not content with the oracles of scripture, devise some novelty out of their own head. (Deut. iv. 2; Eev. xxii. 18.) God's covenant with the Levitical priest was to teach at his mouth ; such, also, was the law for prophets and apostles. Let Rome solve this difficulty if she would subject my faith to the decrees of man. Rome maintains that the truth is always with the pas- tors, and the church cannot exist unless displayed in gen- eral councils. My answer is from the prophets : In the time of Isaiah, God had not yet abandoned the church; but how did he speak of the pastors ? '"His watchmen are blind ; they are all ignorant, they are all dimib dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slum- ber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand ; they all look to their own way" (Isaiah Ivi. 10, 11). See similar denunciations in Hosea ix. 8 ; Jeremiah vi. 13 ; xiv. 14 ; Ezekiel xxii. 25, 26. Read the whole of Jeremiah's tliirty-third and fortieth chapters. There is more of the same kind throughout the prophets ; nothing is of more frequent recurrence. But while this great evil prevailed in the Jewish cliurch, was the Christian church to be exempt from it ? Would that it were so ; but the Holy Spirit declared that it would be otherwise. Peter's words are clear — -"There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies." See how he here predicts impend- ing danger, not from ordinary believers, but from the pastors and teachers. How often do Christ and his apos- tles predict that the greatest danger to the church would come from pastors ! Paul openly declares that Antichrist would have his seat in the church. Moreover, he says this great evil was almost at hand. He tells the elders of Ephesus that among themselves should men arise speak- ing perverse things. If these could degenerate in so short a time, what great corruption might not a great series of years introduce among pastors ! It has been thus in almost every age — the safety of the church does not de- pend on the pastor. It was becoming that those appointed 264 MY LIFE AND TIMES. to preserve the peace and safety of the church shoiihl be its presidents and guardians ; bnt it is one thing to per- form what you owe, and another to owe what you do not perform. Let me not be misunderstood as desiring to overthrow the authority of pastors. All that I advise is that we exercise discrimination, not supposing that all who call themselves pastors are such indeed. But the Pope, with his whole herd of bishops, for no other reason than that they have the name of pastors, obedience to God's word being shaken off, invert all things at their pleasure; meanwhile claiming that they cannot be destitute of the light of truth, that the Spirit of God perpetually resides in them, that the church subsists in them and dies with them, as if the Lord did not punish wickedness now as of old, by smiting pastors with astonishment and blind- ness (Zech. xii. 4). JSTor do these most stolid (stolidis- simi)m.en understand that they are just chiming in with those who warred with the word of God, as said the ene- mies of Jeremiah, "Come and let us devise devices against Jeremiah, for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet (Jeremiah xviii. 18). Hence it is easy to reply to their allegations concerning general councils. The Jews undoubtedly had a true church under the prophets. But we hear the Lord de- nouncing the priests of that day — not one or two of them, but the whole order. (See Jeremiah iv. 9, and see Ezekiel vii. 2G ; Micah iii. 6.) But had a general council then been composed of the priests, had all men of this descrip- tion been collected together, what spirit would have pre- sided over their meeting? Ahab's notable council is a fair example of this kind (1 Kings xxii. 6, 22). There were four hundred prophets present, but a lying spirit in all their mouths. They unanimously condemn the truth. ]\Iicaiah is judged a heretic, smitten and cast into prison. So was it done to Jeremiah, and so to the other prophets. But the most memorable example of a council without God is that which met and condemned Christ. Nothing is wanting, so far as external appearance is concerned. Had there been no church there, Christ had never joined Calvin's institutes. 265 in their worship. A solemn meeting is held. The high priest presided, the whole sacerdotal order is present, yet Christ is condemned and his truth is put to flight. In Thessalonians ii. 3, Paul foretells a defection ; but that was a defection which could not come until the pastors should first forsake God. We cannot, therefore, admit that the church consists in a meeting of pastors, the Lord having nowhere promised that they should always be good, but having sometimes foretold that they should be wicked. Having proved that there is no power in assemblies to set up any new doctrine, what power belongs to them in the interpretation of scripture ? Calvin readily admits that when any doctrine is controverted, there is no better plan than for a council of true bishops to meet and discuss the question, and then agree in common upon the exact form in which the point should be stated. Paul prescribes this method when he gives the power of deciding to any single church ; much more is this proper to the churches met in common council. If any one trouble the church with some novelty in doetrine, and a dissension rises and spreads, the churches should first meet, and after due ex- amination and discussion, decide according to the scrip- ture. This was done in the case of Arius by the Council of N^ice, and in the case of Eunomius and Macedonius by the Council of Constantinople ; in the case of ISTestorius by the Council of Ephesus. In short, this was the usual method, from the first, for the preserving of imity. But let us remember that all ages and places are not favored with an Athanasius, a Basil, a Cyril, and like vindicators of sound doctrine whom the Lord then raised up. ISTay, let us consider what happened in the second Council of Ephesus when the Eutychian heresy prevailed. Flavi- anus, of holy memory, with some pious men, was driven into exile, and many similar crimes were committed, be- cause, instead of the Spirit of the Lord, Dioscorus, a fac- tious man, of a very bad disposition, presided. But the church was not there. I confess it; for I always hold that the truth does not perish in the church, even though trodden down by one council ; for the truth will be won- derfully preserved by the Lord to rise again in his own 266 MY LIFE AND TIMES. time, and prove victorious. But this I perpetually deny, that every interpretation of scripture is true and certain which has received the votes of a council. When, however, the Eomanists maintain that councils have the power of interpreting scripture, they have an- other object in view, namely, that they may make of it a pretext for alleging that everything determined by the council is an interpretation of scripture. Of purgatory, intercession of saints, and auricular confession, there is not one word in scripture. But these are all to be held as interpretations of scripture. Not only so, but whatever a council has determined against scripture is to have the name of an interpretation of scripture. Christ bids all drink of the cup, but the Council of Constance (1414) prohibited giving it to the people, and ordained that priests alone should drink. Paul terms the prohibition of marriage a doctrine of devils, and says that marriage is honorable in all ; but Rome, having interdicted marriage to her priests, insists that this is a true and genuine inter- pretation of scripture. Their claim for councils of the power of approving or disapproving scripture is a blas- phemy which deserves not to be mentioned. I will just ask one question: If the authority of any scripture is founded on the approbation of the church, will they quote the decree of a council to that effect ? At the Council of Xice, Arius was vanquished by passages from the Gospel of John. But according to Rome, he was at liberty to re- pudiate them because no council had then approved them. They allege an old catalogue, which they call a canon. Again I ask: What council published that canon ( They aie dumb. Also, what do they believe that canon to be? The ancients themselves are little agreed about this. If effect is to be given to what Jerome says, the Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus and the like, must take their place in the Apocrypha; but this they will not tolerate on any account. The tenth chapter treats of the power of making laws ; the cruelty of the Pope and his adherents, in this respect, in tyrannically opp'-essing and destroying souls. In this chapter Calvin discusses, I. Human constitutions in gen- eral ; the distinction between civil and ecclesiastical laws ; CALVlW's HSrSTITUTES. 267 Oonscience, why and in what sense ministers cannot im- pose laws on the conscience (Sec. 1-8). II. Traditions or popish constitutions relating to ceremonies and dis- cipline, and the many vices in them, also arguments in favor of those traditions refuted (Sec. 9-2(5) will be passed over, and ecclesiastical constitutions that are good and lawful (Sec. 27-32) will be taken up. We come to the second part of power claimed by Rome for her councils, namely, that of making laws, from which source innumerable traditions have arisen to become deadly snares to miserable souls. These are just like the burdens imposed by scribes and Pharisees, which, how- ever, they touched not with one of their fingers (Matt. xxiii. 4; Luke xi. 16). I have shovsm (Book III,, Chap. iv.. Sec. 4-7) how cruelly murderous is their law of au- ricular confession ; their other laws may not seem so vio- lent, but the most tolerable ones press tyrannically on the conscience. The question now is, can the church make laws to bind our conscience ? This question concerns the great affairs of God's authority as the only lawgiver, and our spiritual liberty, civil order not being here consid- ered. Whatever laws men, without the authority of •God's word, have made respecting our relations to him, we call human traditions. It is these I contend against, and not against those sacred and useful regulations which the church must make respecting discipline, decency and peace. I only insist that necessity must not be imposed upon consciences set free by Christ, and which without this freedom cannot have peace. Christ must be ac- knowledged as our Deliverer, our only King. We are to be ruled by the only law of liberty, the sacred word of the gospel, otherwise we cannot retain the grace we have already received in Christ. We must be subject to no bondage — be bound by no chains. Rome represents the burdens she has imposed on the conscience as few and light. In fact, they cannot be counted, are exacted w^ith the greatest rigor, very many of them difficult, and the whole taken together impossible to be observed. How, then, can those on whom this moun- tain of laws is imposed avoid being perplexed with anxiety and filled with terror ? I therefore impugn these 268 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. church laws enacted to bind the conscience inwardly be- fore God, and imposed as rules necessary to salvation. ]Many are puzzled about this nuitter because they do not distinguish between the external forum and the foriun of conscience ; that is, between courts of men and of God. This perplexity is increased by the words of Paul when he enjoins obedience to magistrates "not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake," which seem to teach that civil laws (that is, human laws) can bind the conscience. This difficulty is to be solved by etymology. When men have knowledge, that is science; but when, in addition to this, they have a sense of the divine judgment, as a wit- ness not permitting them to hide their sins, but bringing them up as criminals, this is called conscience. This is what Paul means when he says that conscience bears wit- ness, and thoughts accuse or else excuse. Hence the old proverb, "Conscience is a thousand witnesses." Peter also speaks of the answer of a good conscience before God. Sometimes, indeed, conscience does extend to men, as when Paul declares, "Herein do I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and to- ward men." But this is said because the benefits of a good conscience flow forth and reach even to men. Prop- erly speaking, however, conscience respects God alone, as I have already said. Another rule also holds in the case of things which are in themselves indifferent. We ought to abstain so as not to give offence, but conscience is free. After being warned against idol-meat, for example, it would be -v^Tong for the believer to eat it ; but the neces- sity is in respect to a brother's weakness, and not to the Lord. The law binds the external act, but the conscience is free. Let us return to human laws. They are unlawful when imposed as of religious obligation and to bind the conscience ; for conscience has to do not with man, but with God only. But we have not yet explained the difficulty which arises from the words of Paul. For if we must obey mag- istrates, not only from fear of punishment, but for con- science' sake, it seems to follow that their laws have do- CALVIN^S IIS^STITUTES. 269 minion over the conscience. And then the same thing wonkl follow as to church laws. I answer that we must distinguish between the genus and the species; for although individual laws may not bind the conscience, yet we are bound by the general law of God to honor magis- trates. Here is the hinge on which turns Paul's discus- sion, viz., magistrates are to be honored because ordained of God ; but he by no means teaches that their laws ex- tend to the internal government of the soul, since he everywhere proclaims that God's worship and the spirit- ual law of right living are superior to all decrees of men. Another thing worthy of notice and depending on what has been said before, is that human laws, whether by magistrate or church — I speak of such as are good ones — are necessary to be observed, but do not bind the con- science, because the whole necessity of observing them de- pends on the general end, and consists not in the thing it- self which is commanded. Very different, however, is the case of those which prescribe a new form of worshipping God, and introduce necessity into things that are free. Calvin's doctrine of the church's having no proper legislative power is the source w^hence came that state- ment of the Westminster Confession of Faith, ''The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his o-wn glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture ; unto which nothing is at any time to be added, whether by new reve- lations of the Spirit, or by traditions of men. But there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the church common to human actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence." God is the only lawgiver ; no laws but his revealed ones bind the con- science. Those laws cover every point of human worship, human belief and human practice. The church can only make circumstantial rules of order and decency. As to what Paul says concerning the law of the magistrate to be obeyed for conscience' sake, Calvin holds that to be God's general direction of paying respect to lawful authority, but no human law, Avhether of church or state, can bind 270 :\rY i.ii-^e axd ti.mes. our consciences. Our liberty of conscience is beyond their sphere. Whatever laws the magistrate puts forth that are good and just, we shall, of course, obey in obedience to God's command. The whole necessity or obligation to obey them respects the general end, that is, of regard to God's command, and respects not any inherent authority in the magistrate's command itself. He may command what is right; he may command what is wrong. Your obligation to obey springs not from the magistrate's com- manding it, but from the general command of God ; and if the command is against your conscience, there is no obli- gation to obey it. Any commands from the magistrate which introduce new forms of divine worship, or which introduce necessity into things that are free, we are not bound to obey. Calvin continues : "Everything relating to a perfect rule of life God has comprehended in his word, so that he has left nothing for men to add to the summary there given. The reasons for this are, first, that since all recti- tude of human conduct must be what accords with the Creator's will, we must regard him alone as the master and guide of our life ; and, secondly, that he might show that there is nothing which he more requires of us than obedience, (James iv. 11, 12; Isaiah xxxiii, 22; 1 Peter V. 2). Thus is cut off all the power claimed by those who would take it upon them to order anything in the church without authority from the word of God." In vicAV, then, of the two reasons why God claims for himself to be our sole lawgiver, and for which ho forbids men to take that honor to themselves, it will be easy to decide that all human constitutions or invented improve- ments by men in the worship or service of God, are con- trary to the word of his law, especially when their observ- ance is bound upon the conscience as of necessary obliga- tion. The first of the two reasons in question is urged by Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians against the false apostles, who attempted to lay new burdens on the churches. In this epistle he maintains that the true wor- ship of God is not to be sought from men, the Lord having fully taught that to us himself. All this is fully set forth in the first and second chapters. In the end of the second Calvin's institutes. 271 chapter lie more decisively condemns all factitious mode- of worship, and all precepts concernino; the worship of God which men devise at their own pleasure or receive from others. Similarly, passages in which Paul forbids the binding of fetters on the conscience are found in the fifth chapter of Galatians, where reference is also made to like work by false apostles. Of Ecclesiastical Rules that are Lawful. The apostle enjoins that all things be done decently and in order, which requires the observance of rules to be ordained by the church. But these rules of mere decency and order must not be confounded with such as bind the conscience. The decency which Paul commends is a regu- lated use of rites that produce reverence and gravity in sacred matters ; while the order he enjoins requires that they who preside shall know the law and rule of right government, and that those who are governed should cheerfully yield obedience to right discipline. The remainder of this chapter consists of four sections, in which Calvin presents the reader with a full delinea- tion of his idea of decency and order. They constitute a most charming exhibition of the reformer's wisdom and piety, of the clearness of his intellect, of his strict ad- herence to principle, and at the same time, of the moder- ation of his views and the breadth of his charity. We shall not, therefore, give the name of decency to that which only ministers an empty pleasure ; such, for example, as is seen in that theatrical display which the j)apists exhibit in their public service, where nothing ap- pears but a mask of uselss splendor, and luxury without any fruit. But we give the name of decency to that which, suited to the reverence of sacred mysteries, forms a fit exercise for piety, or at least gives an ornament adapted to the action, and is not without fruit, but re- minds believers of the great modesty, seriousness and reverence with which sacred things ought to be treated. Moreover, ceremonies, in order to be exercises of piety, must lead us directly to Christ. In like manner, we shall not make order consist in that nugatory pomp which gives nothing but evanescent splendor, but in that arrangement 272 MY LIFE AND TIMES. which removes all confusion, barbarism, contumacy, all turbulence and dissension. Of the former class, we have examples (1 Corinthians xi. 5, 21), where Paul says that profane entertainments must not be intermingled with the sacred supper of the Lord ; that women must not ap- pear in public uncovered. And there are many other things which we have in daily practice, such as praying on our knees, and with our head uncovered, administering the sacraments of the Lord, not sordidly, but with some degree of dignity; employing some degree of solemnity in the burial of our dead, and so forth. In the other class are the hours set apart for public prayer, sermon and solemn services ; during sermon, quiet and silence, fixed places, singing of hymns, days set apart for the celebra- tion of the Lord's supper, the prohibition of Paul against women teaching in the church, and such like. To the same list, especially, may be referred those things which preserve discipline, as catechising, ecclesiastical censures, excommunication, fastings, etc. Thus all ecclesiastical constitutions, which we admit to be sacred and salutary, may be reduced to two heads, the one relating to rites and ceremonies, the other to discipline and peace. But as there is here a danger, on the one hand, lest false bishops should thence derive a pretext for their impious and tyrannical laws, and, on the other, lest some, too apt to take alarm, should, from fear of the above evils, leave no place for laws, however holy, it may here be proper to declare, that I approve of those human constitutions only which are founded on the authority of God and derived from scripture, and are, therefore, altogether divine. Let us take, for example, the bending of the knee, which is made in public prayer. It is asked, whether this is a hu- man tradition, which any one is at liberty to repudiate or neglect ? I say, that it is human, and that at the same time it is divine. It is of God, inasmuch as it is a part of that decency, the care and observance of which is recommended by the apostle ; and it is of men, inasmuch as it specially determines what was indicated in general, rather than exi)ounde(l. From this one example, we may judge what is to be thought of the whole class, viz., that the whole sum of righteousness, and all the parts of divine Calvin's institutes. 273 worship, and everything necessary to salvation, the Lord has faithfully comprehended, and clearly unfolded in his sacred oracles, so that in them he alone is the only Master to be heard. But as, in external discipline and cere- monies, he has not been pleased to prescribe every par- ticular that we ought to observe (he foresaw that this de- pended on the nature of the times, and that one form would not suit all ages), in them we must have recourse to the general rules which he has given, employing them to test whatever the necessity of the church may require to be enjoined for order and decency. Lastly, as he has not delivered any express command, because things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the interest of the church may require, to ■change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly, or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify; if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe. Things which have been appointed according to this rule, it is the duty of the Christian people to observe with a free conscience indeed, and without superstition, but also with a pious and ready inclination to obey. They are not to hold them in contempt, nor pass them by with careless indifference, far less openly to violate them in pride and contumacy. You will ask, what liberty of con- science will there be in such cautious observances ? Nay, this liberty will admirably appear when we shall hold that these are not fixed and perpetual obligations to which we are astricted, but external rudiments for human infirmity, which, though we do not all need, we, however, all use, because we are bound to cherish mutual charity towards each other. This we may recognize in the ex- amples given above. What ? Is religion placed in a wo- man's bonnet, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered ? Is her silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness ? Is there any mystery in bending the knee, or in burying .a dead body, which cannot be omitted without a crime ? 274 MY LIFE AND TIMES. By no means. For, slioiild a woman require to make siicb haste in assisting a neighbor that she has not time to cover her head, she sins not in running out with her head uncovered. And there are some occasions on which it is not less seasonable for her to speak tlian on others to be silent. Xothing, moreover, forbids him who, from dis- ease, cannot bend his knees, to pray standing. In fine, it is better to bury a dead man quickly than from want of grave-clothes, or the absence of those who should attend the funeral, to wait till it rot away unburied. Neverthe- less, in those matters, the customs and institutions of the country, in short, humanity and the rules of modesty itself, declare what is to be done or avoided. Here, if any error is committed through imprudence or forgetfulness^ no crime is perpetrated; but if this is done from con- tempt, such contumacy must be disapproved. In like manner, it is of no consequence what the days and hours are, what the nature of the edifices, and what psalms are sung on each day; but it is proper that there should be certain days and stated hours, and a place fit for receiving all, if any regard is had to the preservation of peace. For what a seed-bed of quarrels will confusion in such matters be, if every one is allowed at pleasure to alter what per- tains to common order ? All will not be satisfied with the same course, if matters, placed, as it were, on debat- able ground, are left to the determination of individuals. But if any one here becomes clamorous, and would be wiser than he ought, let him consider how he will approve his moroseness to the Lord. Paul's answer ought to sat- isfy us, ''If any man seem to be cont-entious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." Moreover, we must use the utmost diligence to prevent any error from creeping in which may either taint or sully this pure use. In this ^ve shall succeed, if whatever observances we use are manifestly useful, and very few in number ; especially if to this is added the teaching of a faithful pastor, which may prevent access to erroneous opinions. The eifect of this procedure is, that in all these matters each retains his freedom, and yet, at the same time, voluntarily subjects it to a kind of necessity, in so far as the decency, of which we have spoken, or charity,. CALVIJSr''s INSTITUTES. 275 demands. !N"ext, that, in the observance of these things, we may not fall into any superstition, nor rigidly require too much from others, let us not imagine that the worship of God is improved by a multitude of ceremonies ; let not church despise church because of a diiference in external discipline. Lastly, instead of here laying down any per- petual law for ourselves, let us refer the whole end and use of observances to the edification of the church, at whose request let us without oifence allow not only some- thing to be changed, but even observances which were formerly in use to be inverted; for the present age is a proof that the nature of times allows that certain rites, not otherwise impious or unbecoming, may be abrogated according to circumstances. Such was the ignorance and blindness of former times ; with such erroneous ideas and pertinacious zeal did churches formerly cling to cere- monies, that they can scarcely be purified from monstrous superstitions without the removal of many ceremonies which were formerly established, not without cause, and which in themselves are not chargeable with any impiety. The eleventh chapter treats of ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion, its necessity, origin, and essential parts, viz., the sacred ministry of the word, and discipline of excommu- nication, of which the aim, use and abuse are explained (Sec, 1—8). The remaining sections of this chapter (9-16) are passed over, containing a refutation of pa- pists' arguments in defence of the tyranny of pontifl:"s, their claim to both swords, imperial pomp and dignity, foreign jurisdiction, and immunity for their priesthood from civil jurisdiction. We come now to the third part of ecclesiastical power, which consists in jurisdiction, upon which, in both its parts, the discipline of the church, in great measure, de- pends. Accordingly, jurisdiction is the principal part of church power, for it is of absolute necessity to the church, just as no city or village can exist without magistrates and government. But this spiritual government of the church is altogether distinct from the civil government, being the order provided by the Lord for the polity only of his church ; for to this end there were established, from the first, tribunals to take cognizance of morals, 27G MY LIFE AND TIMES. animadvert on vices, and exercise the office of the keys. Pan! speaks of these in 1 (\)rinthians xii. 28, under the name of "governments" ; also in Romans xii. 8, where he says, "He that ruleth, with diligence" ; likewise in 1 Timothy v. 17, he mentions two kinds of presbyters — some who labor in the word and doctrine, and others who only rule well ; for in these places he is speaking of the power of the keys which Christ bestowed on the church in Matthew xviii. 15-17, where he orders that those who despise private admonition should be reported to the church, and if they hear not the church, must be ex- pelled from its communion. But these admonitions and corrections cannot be made without investigation ; hence some judicial procedure and order is necessary to the church. AVe speak not here of the general power of doc- trine, as in ]\[atthew xvi. 19, John xx. 23, but of the rights of the Sanhedrin transferred to the Christian church, in as far as that was a pure institution and pro- tective of the church by heavy sanctions ; for clearly in the two passages above named reference is to be had to the apostolic commission, to preach the word, to which com- mission is added this assurance about the binding and loosing for the encouragement both of the preacher and of his hearers. This attestation passes down to all ages and remains firm, rendering all certain and secure, that the M'ord of the gospel, by whomsoever preached, is the very word of God, promulgated at the supreme tribunal, writ- ten in the book of life, ratified firm and fixed in heaven. Therefore, in those two texts the power of the keys is sim- ply the preaching of the gospel, and, as to the men who preach, it is not power, but simply ministry. iSTow, in Matthew xviii. 17, 18, we read again of bind- ing and loosing. This passage is not altogether similar to those above, and must be understood somewhat diifer- ently. They are similar in that both are general state- ments ; that both speak of the same power of binding and loosing; there is the same command and the same prom- ise. They differ in that the former two passages relate to preaching, but the third to church discipline. On these passages Rome builds confession, excommunication, juris- diction, legislation and indulgences. She has fitted doors Calvin's institutes. 277 and locks to the keys as skillfully as if all her life she had been a mechanic. Some may imagine that all these divine arrangements for church discipline were only temporary, and that the civil power, having now become Christian, is perfectly competent to correct all abuses and purify society. Ac- cordingly, Calvin proceeds to point out the dissimilarity between ecclesiastical and civil power. The church has no sword and no prison, no power to coerce. ]^or is pun- ishment ever the church's object, but only repentance. The magistrate imprisons ; the pastor debars from the Lord's table. But as the magistrate ought to purge the church of offences by corporal punishment and coercion, so the minister ought, in his turn, to assist the magistrate in diminishing the number of offenders. Thus they ought to combine their efforts, the one being not an impediment, but a help to the other. The reformer here seems to sigTiify that the church may very well give thanks to the civil magistrate if he helps her to keep her members in order. The discipline provided by the Master, faithfully and wisely adminis- tered, certainly should stand in no need of help from the state; but when we consider how imperfectly discipline is administered in our time, we have no reason to wonder at Calvin's language. He proceeds to say it is quite clear that the order of the church and her spiritual tribunals is designed by the Lord to be perpetuated through all ages, because it would be incongruous that those who refuse to obey our admoni- tions should be turned over to the magistrate, which would be necessary and suitable, of course, if he were to be the successor of the church rulers. The promise to such rulers about binding and loosing cannot be limited to a few years. Our Lord's enactment is no new one. It was always observed in the church of his ancient people. The church cannot dispense with a spiritual discipline which w^as necessary from the beginning. When em- perors and magistrates began to assume the Christian name, spiritual jurisdiction was not forthwith abolished. It was easily arranged that the two should not interfere. A Christian emperor could not wish to exempt himself 278 MY LIFE AND TIMES. from the common spiritual subjeetion. The Emperor Theodosiiis submitted to discipline by Ambrose. A good emperor is within the church, not above it, as said Ambrose. The slanderous accusation against Calvin, that he de- livered over Servetus to the secular arm to be burnt, is shown to be false by the principle which he has here announced. The object to be held in view by the spiritual jurisdic- tion of the church is, first (says Calvin), to prevent the occurrence of scandals, but when they arise, to remove them. Here two things are needful — first, that this spiritual power be altogether distinct from the power of the sword, and, secondly, that it be not administered by one man, but by a lawful consistory. Both these were observed in the purer times of the church. The severest punishment of the church, and, as it were, her last thun- derbolt, is excommunication, and that never to be used except in case of necessity. Moreover, this requires neither violence nor j)hysical force, but gets its power solely from the word of God. In short, the jurisdiction Ol the ancient church was nothing but a practical declara- tion of what Paul says, '"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual." As this warfare was carried on by the preaching of the gospel, so there was required to be connected with the office of the ministry the right of summoning those who are to be privately admonished or sl'.arply rebuked; the right, moreover, of keeping back from the Lord's supper those who could not be admitted without profaning this high ordinance. Hence, Paul inti- mates, in 1 Corinthians v. 12, the necessity of tribunals from the authority of which no believer is exempted. The power of these tribunals was not in any one man, but in the consistory of elders, which was, in the church, what a council is in the city. Cyprian (A. D. 250), speaking of these tribunals as they were in his time, asso- ciates the whole clergy with the bishop ; in anotlicr place he shows that, while the clergy presided, the people were not excluded from cognizance. Cyprian savs, "From the beginning of my bislioprie, I determined to do nothing without the advice of the clergy, nothing without the con- CALVIN^S INSTITUTES. 279 sent of the people." But the common and usual method Avas bj the council of presbyters, of whom, as I have said, there were two classes. Some were for teaching, others were only censors of manners. This institution gradually degenerated from its primitive form, so that in the time of Ambrose (A. D. 397) the clergy alone had cognizance of ecclesiastical causes. Of this Ambrose complains in the following terms: ''The ancient synagogue, and afterwards the church, had elders without whose advice nothing was done ; this has grown obsolete, by whose fault I know not, unless it be by the sloth, or rather the pride, of teachers who would have it seem that they only are somewhat." We see how indignant this holy man was because the bet- ter state was in some degree impaired, and yet the order which then existed was at least tolerable. What, then, had he seen those shapeless ruins which exhibit no trace of the ancient edifice ! How would he have lamented ! Chiefly (principio) contrary to what was right and law- ful, the bishop appropriated to himself what was given to the whole church, just as if the consul had expelled the senate, and assumed to himself the whole empire; for, as the bishop is superior in rank to the others, so the au- thority of the consistory is greater than that of one in- dividual. It was, therefore, a gross iniquity when one man, transferring the common power to himself, paved the way for tyrannical license, suppressed and discarded the consistory ordained by the spirit of Christ. But, as one evil always leads to another evil, the bishops, now disdaining spiritual jurisdiction as a thing unworthy of their care, appoint officials to manage it in their place. I say nothing as to the character of these officials. All I say is, that they have gradually trans- formed the spiritual jurisdiction of the church consistory into a mere litigious forum for the settlement of civil matters ; yet they will tell you, we have admonitions, and Ave have excommunication. But this is the way God is mocked. Calvin describes the end of all their pro- ceedings, in their so-called spiritual jurisdiction, as the collection of money, and he shows how money is the means of escape from all their so-called spiritual disci- pline. He adds that not only they take charge, in this 280 MY LIFE AND TIMES. fashion, of Htiij;ation about pecuniary affairs, but, also, that in this very same fashion do they censure vices, such as whoredom, lasciviousness, drunkenness, and like in- iquities, Mdiich they not only tolerate, but, by a kind of tacit approbation, through the reception of money, en- courage, both among the people and themselves. Out of many they summon a few, that they might not seem to connive too much {nimis socordes in connivendo), or that they may mulct them in money. I say nothing of the plunder, rapine, peculation and sacrilege which are there ccmmitted. I repeat, that I say nothing of the kind of persons Avho are, for the most part, appointed by the bishops to act in their place. It is enough, and more than enough, that when the Romanists boast of their spiritual jurisdiction, we are ready to show that nothing is more contrary to the procedure instituted by Christ; that it has no more resemblance to ancient practice than dark- ness has to light. The twelfth chapter treats of the discipline of the church, and its principal use in censures and excommuni- cation. This chapter consists of two parts : I. The first part of ecclesiastical discipline, which respects the people, and is called common, consists of two parts : the former de- pending on the power of the keys, which is considered, (Sec. 1-14) ; the latter consisting in the appointment of times for fasting and prayer (Sec. 14-21). II. The sec- ond part of ecclesiastical discipline, relating to the clergy (Sec. 22-28), shall be passed over, as not relating to Cal- vin's doctrine of church government, being peculiar to the Romish church. Calvin speaks, first, of the common discipline, to which both clergy * and people are subject. If no society, even no moderate family, can do without right discipline, much more necessary is it to the church. As the saving doc- trine of Christ is the life of the church, so his discipline is itf; sinews, without which its members cannot be kept together. Therefore, all who wish to destroy or impede * In liis French A'ersion of the Institutes, Calvin says, "I use this word, although it is improper." CALYIN^S INSTITUTES. 281 it;, seek tlie devastation of the church ; for this must happen, if to preaching be not added private admonition, correction, and similar methods of maintaining doctrine. Discipline is a curb to restrain and tame those who war against doctrine ; or, it is a stimulus to arouse the indif- ferent ; or, it is a fatherly rod, by which those who make a grievous lapse are chastised in mercj. The beginnings of devastation, which we see already (in our Reformed Church), call for a remedy. ]*^ow the only remedy is this which Christ enjoins and the pious have always had in use. The first step in discipline is admonition. If any one is worthy of blame, he must allow himself to be admon- ished, and every one must study to admonish his brother when the case requires. Especially is admonition the duty of pastors and elders, as Paul shows when he taught 13ublicly, and also from house to house, and then only felt that he was pure from the blood of all men. Thus only does doctrine obtain force and authority. If any one de- spises admonition, he is to be admonished again, and that before witnesses. If he still does not yield, the Sav- iour's injunction is that he must be summoned to the bar of the church, which is the consistory of elders, and there admonished more sharply. If not then subdued, he is to be debarred from the society of believers. But our Saviour is not there speaking of secret faults merely. We must, then, distinguish between private and public sins. It is of the former, that is, private offences,, that Christ says you must go and speak with thy brother alone. Of open sins, that is, public ones, Paul says to Timothy, ''Eebuke them before all." So Paul rebuked Peter when he dissembled, not privately, but in the face of the church. The legitimate course, therefore, will be to proceed in correcting secret faults by the steps men- tioned by Christ, and, in open sins, accompanied with public scandal, to proceed at once to solemn correction by the church. Another distinction Calvin makes is between mere de- linquencies and flagrant iniquities. For the latter a sharper remedy than admonition is necessary, as Paul shows in the case of the incestuous Corinthian, who is 282 MY LIFE AND TIMES. not only verbally rebuked, but excommunicated by him as soon as he was informed of his sin. Let the reader observe that Calvin describes Paul as ex- communicating this man because his apostleship gave him plenary power, but no such one-man power belongs to the settled church-state, although a foreign missionary, far re- moved from any presbyterial authority, can of right do the same. Calvin continues : "The spiritual jurisdiction, which the Lord has given to the church, is the best support to sound doctrine, the best foundation of order, and the best bond of unity. Therefore, when tlie church banishes from her communion those guilty of flagrant iniquity, as well as the contumacious, who, when duly admonished for lighter faults, hold God and his tribunal in contempt, she, so far from arrogating anything to herself, is just exer- cising a jurisdiction which she has received from the Lord. Moreover, the Lord has declared that the just sen- tence of the church is his own sentence, and that whatever she does on earth is ratified in heaven ; for it is by the word of the Lord she condemns, and by the word of the Lord she receives back into favor. Those, I say, who trust that churches can long stand without this bond of discipline are mistaken." There are three ends of this severe discipline. The first is tliat God may not be insulted by the flagitious lives of professing Christians. If he who has the dispensation of the Lord's supper admits to it any unworthy person whom he ought and is able to repel, he is as guilty of sac- rilege as if he had cast the Lord's body to the dogs. Chrysostom bitterly inveighs against those priests who, from fear of the great, dare not keep any one back. ^'Blood," says he, "will be required at your hands. . . . Let us not tremble at fasces, purple or diadems ; our power here is greater. Assuredly, I will sooner give up my body to death, and allow my blood to be shed, tlian be a partaker of that pollution." Therefore, lest this sacred mystery be profaned, selection is required in its adminis- tration, and this cannot be except by the jurisdiction of the church. A second end of discipline, is that the good may not, as usually happens, be corrupted by constant CALVIN^S INSTITUTES. 283 communication with the wicked. To this Paul refers in commanding the Corinthians not to associate wdth the incestuous man. A third end of discipline is that the sinner may be ashamed. Accordingly, the apostle says that he had delivered the Corinthian to Satan. He o-ives him over to Satan, because the devil is without the church, as Christ is in the church. Some interpret this of a cer- tain infliction on the flesh, but this interpretation seems to me most improbable. These being the three ends of discipline, it remains to see in what way the church is to execute this discipline, which is made a part of jurisdiction {quae in jurisdic- ttone posita est). (Calvin's meaning is that discipline depends on jurisdiction, for the word jurisdiction in- volves judgment and trial, and these always must precede execution.) He continues: And, first, we must remem- ber the distinction already made, that some sins are public, others are private or still more secret (alia jjrivata vel occuMiora). The public ones are those which are done not merely before one or two witnesses, but openly, and to the oft'ence of the whole church. Secret, I call not those which are altogether concealed from men, such as those of hypocrites (these are the occidtiom), but those of an intermediate description, Avhicli are not without wit- nesses, and which yet are not public. The former, that is, the public class, require not the steps which Christ enu- merates, but the church is to summon the offender, and discipline him according to his fault. The second class, that is, the private or secret class, come not before the church unless there is stubbornness, according to the rule of Christ, about not hearing two or three. Calvin divides sins into public and private, or secret ; but it is evident that he does not use these two last terms as synonymous, for besides the secret (occulta), he has a class of occultiora, which are the sins of the hypocrite en- tirely concealed from men, though known to God. He proceeds : "Also, in taking cognizance of offences, it is necessary to attend to the distinction between delin- quencies and flagrant iniquities. In lighter offences, severity is less required than kind and fatherly gentleness ■of rebuke, so as not to exasperate the offender, but draw 284 MY LIFE AND TIMES. him back to repentance. In flagrant iniqnities, a sharper remedy must be used. The offender must, for a time, be denied the communion of the supper, until he gives proof of repentance. Paul discards the Corinthian from the church, and reprimands the Corinthians for having borne with him so long." Such was the method of the ancient church: the fla- grant offender was debarred the communion for a time, then he must humble himself before God, and testify re- pentance before the church. He must then observe cer- tain solemn rites as indications of repentance. Having thus given satisfaction to the church, he was received back by the laying on of hands by the bishop and clergy. Cyprian describes all this, but he adds that the consent of the people was at the same time required. Even princes submitted to this discipline in common with their subjects ; and justly, for all diadems and sceptres should be subject to Christ. The Emperor Theo- dosius, Avhen excommunicated by Ambrose for slaughter at Thessalonica, laid aside all his royal insigniia, and pub- licly, in the church, bewailed the sin into which others had led him, imploring pardon with groans and tears. Great kings must think it no disgrace to prostrate them- selves before the King of kings, and to be censured by his church. I only add that the legitimate course in excom- munication is not for the elders to act by themselves, but always with the knowledge and approbation of the church. Calvin goes on to insist with Paul (2 Corinthians ii. T), that in the exercise of discipline, the use of modera- tion will better subserve the ends of discipline than undue severity. He tells us the ancient church erred when they suspended from the communion for three, four or seven years, or even for life. When one had lapsed a second time, he was not admitted to a second repentance, but ejected for life. Sound judgment will always condemn this want of prudence. Here I rather disapprove the public custom than blame those who complied with it. Cyprian fully declares it was not with his own will he was thus over-rigorous. Chrysostom, who is somewhat more severe, still expresses himself similarly. As for Augustine, we know how indulgently he treated the Do- Calvin's institutes. 285 natists, receiving back any from schism who declared their repentance. It was because a contrary method prevailed that they were obliged to give up their own judgment. Accordingly, as the church must act mildly in her dis- cipline, and not with undue severity, which Paul depre- cates, so private Christians should act charitably towards the lapsed. In one word, let us commit them to the divine judgment, rather than our own, because when it seems good to him, the worst are changed into the best. For the promise of our Saviour, about binding and loosing, is not to individual persons, but only to the church and her representatives; moreover, it does not consign the ex- communicated to everlasting damnation, but conditions that upon their never repenting. Excommunication does not, like anathema, doom, and devote to eternal destruc- tion, but only forewarns to bring to repentance. If it succeeds, reconciliation and restoration to communion are ready to be given. Moreover, anathema is rarely, if ever, to be used. The reader should observe that, in general, Calvin means by excommunication only suspension from church communion, whether for a longer or a shorter time, but here he brings it into comparison with anathema. At the present time Protestants will broadly distinguish ex- communication, on the one hand, from suspension, as well as^ on the other hand, from anathema. In a word, Protes- tants never anathematize. The reformer next points out to private persons, as well as ministers, the duty of being patient with the imper- fections of church discipline, because the task is so diffi- cult. He quotes from Augustine, that neither is strict- ness of discipline to be neglected, nor the bonds of society to be burst by intemperate correction. On the one hand, that prudence is to be used which our Lord requires, "lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them." On the other hand, he who neglects to ad- monish, accuse and correct the bad, although he neither favors them nor sins with them, is guilty before the Lord ; then he concludes from Cyprian: Let a man mercifully correct what he can ; what he cannot correct, let him bear patiently, and in love bewail and lament. 286 :\rY live asd tj^ikh. Calvin says Angnstine was luovod to take these posi- tions bv the moroseness of the Donatists in his time, who, because they saw faults in the church not disciplined with due severity, bitterly inveighed against the l)ishops as traitors, and then, by an impious schism, separated them- selves from the flock of Christ. Similar is the conduct of the Anabaptists in the present day, acknowledging no as- sembly as a church of Christ unless, clothed with angelic perfection, they overthrow, under pretense of zeal, every- thing that tends to edification. Augustine tells us that the Uonatists, out of zeal for their owm disputes, at- tempted to draw members of the church entirely away. Swollen with pride, raving with petulance, insidious in calumny, turbulent in sedition, they covered themselves with a stern severity, that it might not be seen how void they w^ere of truth. The correction of a brother's fault, which scripture says must be done with moderation, they pervert to sacrilegious schism and purposes of excision. Thus Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. One thing Augustine specially commends, viz., that if the contagion of sin has seized the multitude, strict dis- cipline must not be attempted wdth them. That would only disturb the weak good, without correcting the wicked proud. Such was his own practice. In writing to Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, about the prevalence of drunkenness in Africa, a vice so severely condemned in scripture, he advises a council of bishops to devise some remedial plans to be pursued, adding immediately that, in his opinion, no harsh or imperious measures would suit the case. Severity can only be exercised against the sins of the few. With a multitude of offenders, more is to be effected by teaching than commanding, by admonishing than threatening. Fasting and Prayer, and Other Religious Observances, The appointment of such days by pastors is not strictly included in the pow'er of the keys, but has prevailed in the church, not only from the time of the apostles, but even from the times of the law and the prophets. The apostles follow^ed a course not new to the people of God^ CALVIS'S INSTITUTES. 287 and which they foresaw woukl be useful to the church. Whene^'er, therefore, a religious controversy arises which either a council or an ecclesiastical tribunal behooves to decide; whenever a minister is to be chosen; in short, whenever any matter of difficulty or great importance is under consideration ; on the other hand, when manifesta- tions of the divine anger appears, as war, pestilence and famine — the sacred and salutary custom of pastors ex- horting to fasting and prayer has always been observed in the church. Though some may question whether fasting is suited to the church, none will question as to prayer. We certainly have, however, the example of the apostles as to fasting. Very many regard it as not very necessary, others reject it altogether, and some hold that it tends to superstition, not understanding what utility there can be in it. Let us, therefore, consider the question. A holy and lawful fast has three ends in view. The fiist is to mortify and subdue the flesh; the second, to prepare for prayer and meditation ; the third, to evidence humility when we are confessing guilt. The first of these does not apply so well to public fasting, because all have not the necessary constitution nor due health, and hence applies better to private fasting. The second and third apply both to the whole church, and to each individual; for sometimes the Lord smites the whole nation with dire- ful calamity, while sometimes it is confined to one in- dividual and his family; in either place, it behooves to plead guilty and confess guilt. Indeed, the thing is properly a feeling of the mind, and then the feeling will be externally manifested. Thus, when Paul and Barnabas were to be ordained to the important work of carrying the gospel to the heathen, the Christians of Antioch observed fasting and prayer (Acts xiii. 3) ; when Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church, it w^as with fasting and prayer (Acts xiv. 23) ; when Luke says that Anna served God day and night with fasting and prayer, he simply intimates that in this way she trained herself to assiduity in prayer (Luke ii. 37) ; thus Nehemiah, by fasting and prayer with more intense earnestness, prayed to God for the de- liverance of his people (JSTehemiah i. 4) ; for this reason 288 MY LIFE AND TIMES. Paul advised married believers to abstinence for a time (1 Corinthians vii. 5). If the Israelitish church, formed and constituted by the Lord himself, made use of public fastinjo; in token of sadness, why may we not do the same ? It is indeed an external ceremony, but, like all the ceremonies appointed to Israel (Joel ii. 15), terminated in Christ. I*^ay, in the jDresent day, it is an admirable help to believers as it always was. Accordingly, when our Saviour excuses his apostles for not fasting, he does not say that fasting is abrogated, but only reserves it for calamitous times, and conjoins it with mourning (Matthew ix. 35 ; Luke v. 34). But let us define what is fasting. It is not simply a restrained and sparing use of food, because a Christian life ought always to be tempered with frugality and so- briety. But fasting is to retrench somewhat from our accustomed mode of living for one day or for a certain period, and to perform those actions of repentance, hu- miliation, thanksgiving, intercession and prayer, for the sake of which the fast was appointed. But unless pastors observe the greatest care, fasting may give rise to sundry evils, much worse than no fasting at all. The first thing to be feared is the encroachment of superstition. Joel ii. 13 says, "Rend your hearts, and not vour garments." Fastina; is of no value in the siffht of God unless accompanied with true dissatisfaction with sin and with one's self, true humiliation and true grief, from the fear of God. Fasting is only an inferior help to these internal affections. God abominates nothing more than the substitution of outward signs for real exercises of the heart. Accordingly, Isaiah inveighs against the hypocrisy of the Jews, "Is this such a fast as I have chosen" (Isaiah Iviii. 5-7). Another danger to \^tch against is the idea that fasting is a work involving merit. In itself it is a thing indifferent. It is of no importance except as to the end for which employed. It is most per- nicious to confound this with works enjoined by God as necessary in themselves. This Manichean dream Augus- tine severely rebukes. A third error is the exacting of fasting with greater severity and rigor as a principal duty, and the extolling of it with such encomiums as make the Calvin's institutes. 289 people think they have done something admirable when thej have fasted. Therefore, I do not entirely excuse some ancient writers as having sown seeds of superstition by their extravagant praises of fasting ; for, at that time, the superstitious observance of Lent had general preva- lence, both the vulgar imagining that they thereby per- formed some excellent service to God, and the very pas- tors praising it as a holy imitation of Christ. Christ did not fast forty days as an example to others, but to show that his gospel was not of men, but had come from heaven. Strange that so many men of acute judgment should fall into this gross delusion which so many clear reasons refute. 1, Christ did not fast repeatedly, as if ordaining an anniversary fast, but only once as preparing to pro- mulgate the gospel. 2, He did not fast after the manner of men, as giving them an example for their imitation. It was rather an example to excite their admiration. 3, In short, his fast was like that of Moses, when he received the law from God. The miracle of Moses' forty days' fast was to establish the law, and it behooved to be per- formed also by Christ, that the gospel might not seem inferior. But no one among the Israelites ever set up such a fast to imitate Moses, nor did any of the holy prophets and fathers do the like. It is only false zeal and egregious superstition to fast forty days in imita- tion of Christ. Worse times followed. To the absurd zeal of the com- mon people, on the side of the bishops were added igno- rance and rudeness, lust of power and tyrannical rigor. Impious laws Avere passed, binding the conscience in deadly chains. The eating of flesh was forbidden, as if a man were contaminated by it. Sacrilegious opinions were added, one after another, until all became an abyss of error. They make a mock of God ; for in the use of the most exquisite delicacies they claim the praise of fast- ing. JSTever was there greater abundance or variety or savoriness of food. Meantime, the holiest of them were wallowing foully. The highest worship of God was to abstain from flesh, though indulging in every kind of delicacy ; on the other hand, it was the greatest impiety, scarcely to be expiated by death, if one should taste a 290 MY l.TFE AND TIMKS. bit of bacon or rancid flesh witli liis broad ; Jerome writes to l^epotian of these things in his day. What was then the fault of a few is now common among all the rich : they do not fast for any other purpose than to feast after- ward more richly and luxuriously. In Sermon I. on Easter Day, Bernard censures, among others, princes also for longing, during the time of Lent, for the ap- proaching festival of our Lord's resurrection, that they might indulge more freely. The thirteenth chapter treats of vows and the miserable entanglements caused by vowing rashly. This chapter consists of two parts: I. Of vows in general (Sec. 1-8). 11. Of monastic vows, and especially of the vow of celi- bacy (Sec. S-21), all of which will be passed over. Calvin begins the discussion by deploring how the free chtirch of Christ, whose liberty w^as purchased by his blood, is, through the craft of Satan, burdened with a cruel tyranny, and almost buried under a mass of human traditions ; but not the church only, each individual member, tyrannized over by his own conscience, laying burdens on himself. This has been the result of men undertaking to add, through vows, stronger obligations than God himself had put upon them. We have already shown (Book IL, Chap, viii.. Sec. 5) that everything necessary for a pious and holy life is comprehended in the law ; also that the Lord, the better to dissuade us from devising new works, included the whole of righteousness in simple obedience to his will. It is easy, then, to see that all factitious worship, devised by us for the service of God, is not in the least degree acceptable to him, however pleasing it may be to us. In many texts, God not only rejects, but expresses abhorrence of such worship. Hence arises the doubt in regard to vows which are made with- out any express authority from the word of God. Can they be duly made by Christian men, and to what extent are they binding? We are careful what we promise to- man, much more careful should we be what vows we make to God. Here superstition has in all ages prevailed, not only with heathen people, but amongst Christians as m'oII. I^othing can be less becoming, but nothing has been more usual. Despising the law of God, mankind have burned Calvin's institutes. 291 Avith insane zeal for making vows according to any dreamy notions which they themselves have conceived. When we treat of vows, therefore, we are not discussing a superlluons question. Three things must now be considered. 1, Who is it to whom we make vows ? 2, What are we that make them ? 3, With what intent do we make them \ In regard to the first, we should consider that it is God to whom we vow, and that he very greatly delights in our obedience, and as much abominates will-worship. We must not, therefore, arrogate to ourselves a license to promise anything to God without his assurance that it will please him. Paul's doctrine, that whatsoever is not of faith is sin, while it ex- tends to matters of every kind, applies especially to cases where we are making an offering to God. In vows, then, our first precaution must be to attempt nothing rashly; and we shall be safe from the danger of rashness, when we have God going before and dictating from his word what will be acceptable. The second point is that we measure our strength, and consider our vocation, so as not to neglect the blessing of liberty, which God has conferred upon us. For he who vows what is not within his means, or is at variance with his calling, is rash ; while he wdio contemns the benefi- cence of God in giving him so much liberty, is ungrateful. Every man should have respect to the measure of grace bestowed on him, as Paul enjoins (Romans xii. 3 ; 1 C^orinthians xii. 4), lest, by arrogating too much to him- self, he fall headlong. For example, the Jews, who vowed not to eat or drink until they had assassinated Paul, had no power over Paul's life. Thus Jephthah suf- fered for his folly, when, with precipitate fervor, he made a rash vow (Judges xi. 30). Of this class, the first place for insane audacity belongs to the vow of celibacy by the priests, monks and nuns, ignorant so dreadfully of hu- man weakness. The third point is with what intention the vow is made. God looks at the heart ; according to the purpose of the mind, the same thing may at one time please and be acce^Dtable to him, and at another be most displeasing. If you vow total abstinence from wine, as of holiness, or as 292 -MY LIFE AND TIMES. if it were sin to drink it, you are superstitious; but if you have some end in view, which is not perverse, no one can disapprove. So far as I can see, there are four ends to which our vows may be properly directed ; two of these refer to the past, and two to the future. To the past be- long vows of thanksgiving for favors received, or for pun- ishment on ourselves for faults committed ; vows of thanksgiving, as Jacob's (Genesis xxviii. 20), and of peace offerings to the Lord, as of kings of old, when going to war, if they were victorious. Thus, also, are to be understood all the passages in the Psalms which speak of vows(Ps. xxi. 25 ; Ivi. 12 ; cxvi. 14, IS). These are law- ful in these days, as thank-offerings to the Lord for mercy received or desired — for they accord with the word of God. Again, to the past refers the vow of repentance or self-punishment. A man, by gluttonous indulgence, hav- ing fallen into iniquity, renounces luxuries for a time, and trains himself to temperance, and, therefore, binds himself with a vow, that he may stand more firmly. Yet I do not lay this do^vn as a law for all who have similarly offended ; I merely speak of what may be done if one thinks such a vow could be useful to him. Thus, while I hold it lawful to make such a vow, I, at the same time, consider it not obligatory. The vows that relate to the future are either cautions or stimuli. A man sometimes sees that in the use of a thing that is lawful, he cannot restrain himself, and so falls into evil, and he cuts off himself for a time by a vow from the use of that thing. If a man finds some bodily ornament brings him into peril, and yet he is allured by cupidity to long for it, why not impose a curb on his desires by a vow, and so free himself from danger ? If one becomes oblivious or sluggish in the duties of piety, why not, by a vow, both awaken his memory and shake off his sloth ? These are helps to infirmity, and may be used to advan- tage by the ignorant and imperfect. Hence we hold that vows, having respect to one of these four ends, especially in external things, are lawful, provided they are sup- ported by the approbation of God, are suitable to our calling, and are limited to the measure of grace bestowed upon us. Calvin's institutes. 293 We now see what view ought to be taken of all vows. There is one vow common to all believers ; it is taken at baptism, confirmed in our catechising and partaking of the Lord's supper. The sacraments are a kind of mutual contracts, by which the Lord conveys his mercy to us, and by it eternal life ; on our side, we vow obedience. The substance of the vow is that we renounce Satan, and bind ourselves to the service of God. This vow is certainly sanctioned by scripture, nay, exacted from all the chil- dren of God, and is holy and salutary, yet no man keeps or can keep it, but this stipulation is included in the cov- enant of grace, which comprehends forgiveness of sins and the spirit of holiness, so that the promise, which we there make, but do not keep, is combined with entreaty for pardon, and petition for assistance. Any one can easily estimate the character of each single vow by re- membering the three given rules. But I do not advise every day making vows that are holy. I can give no pre- cept as to time or number, yet, if any will take my advice, he will not undertake any but what are sober and tem- porary. If ever and anon you launch out into vows, the solemnity will be lost by the frequency, and you will fall into superstition. If you bind yourself by a perpetual vow, you will have great trouble and annoyance in getting free, or, worn out by length of time, you will at length make, bold to break it. Tried by these rules, what superstitions the world has labored under for ages past ! One vows that he will ab- stain from wine, as if this were in itself an acceptable ser- vice to God. Another binds himself to fast, another to abstain from flesh on certain days, making that more holy than other days. Things much more boyish were vowed, but not by boys. It became great wisdom to make votive pilgrimages to holy places, and sometimes to per- form the journey on foot, or with the body half naked, that the greater merit might be acquired by the greater fatigue. All these things, tried by the rules we have laid down, will be found, not only empty and nugatory, but filled with manifest impiety. Be the judgment of the flesh what it may, God abhors nothing more than factitious worship. To these are added pernicious and damnable 294 MY LIFE AND TIMES. notions, hypocrites, after performing such frivolities, thinking that thej have acquired no ordinary righteous- ness, placing the substance of piety in external observ- ances, and despising all others who appear less careful in regard to them. Part II. — Of the Sacraments. The fourteenth chapter treats of the sacraments. This chapter consists of two principal parts : I. Of sacraments in general. The sum of the doctrine stated (Sec. 1-6). Two classes of opponents to be guarded against, viz., those who undervalue the power of the sacraments, and those who attribute too much to the sacraments (Sec. 7-17). All these will be passed over, the first-named being the Anabaptists, and the second being the Roman- ists. 11. Of the sacraments in particular, both of the Old and the 'New Testaments. Their scope and meaning (Sec. 18-22). Refutation of those wdio have either too high or too low ideas of the sacraments (Sec. 23-26), which will be passed over. A sacrament is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promise of good-will toward lis, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we, in our turn, testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels and men. More briefly, we may define it thus : A testimony of the divine favor toward us, confirmed by an external sign, w^ith a corresponding attestation of our faith towards him. Both these definitions agree with Augustine's — a vis- ible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form of an invis- ible grace. This is briefer, but somewhat obscure. I prefer to make the definition fuller, in order that it may be more plain to all. Calvin next explains how these ordinances come to be called sacraments. The old interpreter, whenever he wished to render the Greek term ivjarrjoto)^ into Latin, specially when used with reference to divine things, em- ployed the word sacramentum. Thus in Ephesians i. 9, "Having made knovm unto us the mystery {sacramen- tum) of his will." So, also, Ephesians iii. 2 ; Colossians i. 26; 1 Timothy iii. 16. He was unwilling to use the Calvin's institutes. 295 word arcanum, lest it should seem beneath the magnitude of the thing meant. When the thing, therefore, was sacred and secret, he used the term sacramentum. In this sense, it frequently occurs in ecclesiastical writers. Thus it was that this term was applied to such ordinances as give an august representation of things spiritual and sublime. It follows from the definition given, that there never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise to the sacra- ment, being an appendage to confirm the promise as with a seal. In this way, God provides, first, for our ignorance and sluggishness, and, secondly, for our infirmity ; but properly speaking, the sacrament does not confirm his word, but only establishes us in the faith of it; for the truth of God is in itself sufficiently stable and certain. It cannot receive confirmation from any other quarter. But, as our faith is slender and weak, so, if not propped up on every side and supported by all kinds of means, it is forthwith shaken, tossed to and fro, wavers and even falls. But here our merciful Lord, in his boundless con- descension, so accommodates himself to our capacity, that seeing how, from our animal nature, we are always creep- ing on the ground, and cleaving to the flesh, having no thought of what is spiritual, and not even forming an idea of it, he declines not, by means of these earthly elements, to lead us to himself ; and, even in the flesh, to exhibit a mirror of spiritual blessings ; for, as Chrysostom says (Horn. GO, ad Popiil.'), "Were we incorporeal, he would give us these things in a naked and incorporeal form. Xow, because our souls are implanted in bodies, he de- livers spiritual things under things visible, l^ot that the qualities, Avhich are set before us in the sacraments, are inherent in the nature of the things, but God gives them this signification." When we say the sacrament consists of the word and the sign, we are not to refer to the word of consecration, muttered without meaning and without faith, but the preached word, which makes us understand what the sign means. Calvin describes the Komish formula of consecration, before his day, as muttered by the priest in Latin, while the people, without understanding, looked 296 MY LIFE AND TIMES. stiipidly on. 'N^y, this was done for the express purpose of preventing any instruction from thereby reaching the people. At length, superstition rose to such a height that it was thought the consecration was not duly performed except in a low grumble, which few could hear. Very different is the doctrine of Augustine, who says, "Let the word be added to the sign, and it becomes a sacrament." You see how he required preaching to the production of faith. So the apostle says, "This is the word of faith Avhich we preach" ( Romans x. 8 ; Acts xv. 9 ; 1 Peter iii. 21). And there is not the least doubt as to what Christ did, and commanded us to do ; nor as to what the apostles followed, and a purer church observed. ]^ay, from the very beginning, whenever God offered any sign to the holy patriarchs, it was inseparably attached to doc- trine. Therefore, wherever we hear mention of the sac- ramental word, let us understand the promise, which, proclaimed aloud by the minister, leads the people by the hand to that to which the sign tends and directs us. The sacramental signs are like seals aiSxed to diplomas, and other public deeds ; in a blank paper they are noth- ing, but to what is written they add much. ISTor is this a fiction of our own, for Paul himself uses it, terming cir- cumcision a seal in Romans iv. 11, where he maintains that the sacrament of circumcision was to Abraham an attestation to the covenant, by the faith of which he had been previously justified. We preach that the promise in the covenant is sealed by the sacrament, since it is plain, from the promises themselves, that one promise confirms another. Sacraments are the clearest promises, for they are promises pictured to the eye. But how can a carnal seal confirm a spiritual promise ? The believer's faith looks through the carnal spectacle, and rises to the sublime mystery hidden in the sacraments. As the Lord calls his promises covenants (Genesis vi. 18; ix. 9; xvii. 2), and sacraments signs of the cove- nants, so something similar may be inferred from human covenants, viz., that the words give meaning to the signs. The slaughter of a hog might mean nothing. The joining of hands might mean battle as well as friendship. The use of sacraments is to confirm promises, and because we CALVIN^S INSTITUTES. 297 are carnal, carnal objects are used in our spiritual train- ing to exhibit and establish the promise, just as nurses lead children by the hand. Hence Augustine says a sac- rament is a promise exhibited to the eye, while preaching sets it forth to the ear. There are other similitudes which plainly designate the sacraments as appendages to the word. They may be called the pillars of our faith, which rest on the word, as a building on its foundation, though pillars may be used to still further strengthen it. Or they may be called mirrors, in which we may contem- plate the riches of the glory of his grace revealed in his word. Calvin now proceeds to defend the sacraments against two classes of opponents — first, the Anabaptists, who undervalue them (in Sec. Y-13), and, secondly, the Ro- manists (in Sec. 14-17), who ascribe to them a secret virtue nowhere attributed to them by the Lord. All these will be passed over, to come to the concluding sections (18-26) of the sacraments in particular, both of the Old and ^ew Testaments, their scope and meaning. Sacraments of Old and New Testaments in Particular. ISTow, therefore, we have this fixed point, regarding sacraments, that their only ofiice does not differ from that of the word, which is to hold forth Christ to us, and the treasures of divine grace, which are in him. They have no inherent virtue. They confer nothing, avail nothing without faith; in other words, we get nothing else from them — only more of what we bring to them. Their only ofijce is to attest the benevolence of the Lord to us. They only avail, as accompanied by the Holy Spirit, enabling us to receive this testimony, as the vessel which is not open cannot receive the liquid which is poured out upon it. Sacraments, then, include all th,e signs God ever gave to confirm his promises to men. Some of these have been natural objects ; some miracles. Of the former class were the tree of life to Adam and Eve; the rainbow in the cloud to ]Sroah. There was no change in the things, but only a new character impressed on them, which even at this day we behold in the rainbow. It is just so with 298 MY LIFE AND TIMES. the bullion turned into coin; it has received no more in- trinsic value, but legally a much greater. Of the second class, were the smoking flax to Abraham, of Gideon's fleece, dewy or dry, and the going back of the shadow on Hezekiah's dial. We proceed to speak of the ordinary sacraments given by God to bring up his worshippers and servants in one faith, and the confession of that faith ; for, as Augustine says, "In no name of religion, true or false, can men be assembled religiously, except by some common use of visible signs." Thus the sacraments, given to the church, are not simple signs, but sacred, divine ceremonies, or, as Chrysostom calls them, "pactions between God and men,'' to cherish faith and to testify their religion. The sacraments given to the Old Testament church were, first, circumcision, and then afterwards purifica- tions, sacrifices, and rites of the Mosaic law. To the Christian church were given only baptism and the Lord's supper. You may call the laying on of hands a sacra- ment, if you please, but certainly it was not a sacrament of the whole church. 'Nov/ the only difference between the sacraments of the Old Testament church and those of the iSTew Testament church is, that the former pointed forwards to Christ as expected, while the latter pointed backwards to him as having already come ; for God never niade a promise to fallen man except in Christ, and, therefore, when sacraments remind us of any promise, they must always remind us of, and lead us to, Christ. Let us consider singly the signification of the Jewish sacraments. First, circumcision set forth the sinfulness of our nature; something which was to be cut off. It was also a memorial to them of the promise to Abraham of a saving seed, viz., Christ (in GaL v. 16), who should bless all nations, and through whom they should recover all they had lost in Adam. Therefore, it was to them, as it had ])een to Abraham, a sign and seal of the righteous- ness of faith, by which they received certain assurance that, if they waited for the Lord, it would be accepted by God for righteousness. But in Chapter XVI., Sec. 3, 4, we shall have better opportunity to follow up the com- parison between circumcision and baptism. CALVIN^S IiSrSTITUTES. 299 Secondly, their washings and purifications placed under their eye the uncleanuess and pollution with which they were naturally contaminated, and promised another laver, in which all their impurities might be washed away. Thirdly, their sacrifices convicted them of their guilti- ness, and the necessity of some satisfaction to divine jus- tice, so that there must be a high priest between God and man, and a victim to be sacrificed to this justice. The high priest was Christ, and he was himself the victim, shedding his ovra blood to appease divine wrath, and by his obedience, which was perfect, abolished the disobedi- ence of man. As to the Christian sacraments, they still more clearly set forth Christ — baptism, that we are washed and puri- fied ; the eucharist, that we are redeemed. Ablution is figured by water, satisfaction by blood. Both are found in Christ, who, as John says, came by water and blood; that is, to purify and redeem. Of this, John also says, there are three witnesses, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood ; but the Spirit is the chief witness, who gives us the full assurance of this testimony. And this sub- lime mystery Avas illustriously displayed on the cross of Christ, when both water and blood poured forth from his side. Of these iSTew Testament sacraments we shall shortly treat at greater length. The fifteenth chapter treats of baptism in two parts. The first part sets before us the two ends of baptism ( Sec. 1-13). The second part may be reduced to four heads. Of the use of baptism (Sec. 14, 15). Of the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister (Sec. 16-18). Of the ccrruptions by which this sacrament was polluted (Sec. 19). To whom reference is had in the dispensation (Sec. 20-22). Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are ad- mitted to the fellowship of the church. The two ends of baptism (in common with all other sacraments) are, first, that it may minister to our faith in him, and, secondly, serve for one confession of him before men. We shall ex- plain both these ends in their order. First. Baptism contributes to our faith three things. 300 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. One is, that it becomes a sign to us of our purification, or, to speak more plainly, it is an assurance to us of oiu* for- giveness, and of our sins being so covered and effaced that tliev will never come into his sight, never be men- tioned, never imputed ; for we are to receive baptism in connection with the promise, ''He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark xvi. 16). In the same way, Paul says Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word (Eph. v. 25, 26) ; the same, also, is said in Titus iii. 5, and in 1 Peter iii. 21. Baptism, then, is by no means the cause of salvation ; only the knowledge and certainty of it is testi- fied and seen in this sacrament. By it the message of our ablution and sanctification is sealed — as in the word it is announced. The only purification which baptism prom- ises is that which is effected by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, who is figured by water from the resemblance between washing and cleansing. Who, -then, dare ascribe to the water the cleansing which we receive from the blood of Christ ? since the sacrament leads us away from the vifcible element that we may fix our minds on Christ alone. Calvin has here in mind the church of Rome, which makes sacraments the causes of grace, whilst we regard them as only a means through faith. iSTor is baptism bestowed only with reference to past sins, for by it we are washed and purified once for the whole of our life. It was from that error that some, in ancient times, refused to be received into the church by baptism, until they should be drawing their last breath, so that they might be washed for all their past. Ancient bishops frequently inveigh against this preposterous pre- caution. On the contrary, as often as we fall, after being baptized, Ave must recall to mind that in our baptism we A\'ere made certain and secure of the remission of all our sins, future, as well as past. For baptism, once truly ad- ministered, cannot be abolished by subsequent sins ; for therein was pledged to us the purity of Christ, which is always in force, not to be destroyed by any stain. Xor must we hence assume a license of sinning for the future. Calvin's institutes. 301 Tlie truth we have just set forth is only for those who, when they have sinned, groan, and are burdened, and op- pressed, that they may have somewhat to support them. Paul, indeed, says that Christ is our propitiation for sins that are past (Romans iii. 25) ; hut he does not thereby deny that constant and perpetual forgiveness of sins is thereby obtained even till death. He only intimates that it is designed by the Father for those poor sinners, who, wounded by remorse of conscience, sigh for the physician. To these Paul here offers the mercy of God. Those who, from hopes of impurity, seek a license for sin, only pro- voke the wrath and justice of God. A second contribution by baptism to our faith in Christ is its showing us our being dead with Christ, and having new life in him. "Know _Ye not," says the apostle, in Romans vi. 3-6, "that when baptized into Christ, we were baptized into his death ? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death, that we should walk in newness of life." In these passages he shows that Christ, by baptism, has made us partakers of his death, ingrafting us into that death ; for, as the twig derives substance and nourishment from the root to which it is attached, so those who are baptized in true faith, truly feel the efficacy of Christ's death in the mortification of their flesh (that is, their i)ld nature), and the efficacy of his resurrection in the quickening of the Spirit (that is, their new-born nature). On this he founds his exhorta- tion, that if we are Christians, we should die unto sin, and live unto righteousness. In this same sense, he speaks in Colossians ii. 12, and Titus iii. 5. In baptism, we are promised, first, the free pardon of sins and impu- tation of righteousness, and, secondly, the grace of the Holy Spirit to form us again to newness of life. The third advantage which our faith in Christ re- ceives from baptism is its assuring us not only that we are dead with Christ, and alive with Christ, but that we are also so united to him as to be partakers of all the good things that are his (omnium ejus honorum) ; for he con- secrated baj)tism in his own body, that he might have it as the firmest bond of union and fellowship with us. Hence Paul proves us to be the sons of God, from the 302 MY LIFE AND TIMES. fact that we put on Christ hi our ha})tisui. Thus wc sec, in Christ, the filling up, or perfecting (coniplementuni), of our baptism, whom, for this reason, we call the proper object, the object we aim at in baptism. Hence it is not strange if the apostles are reported to have baptized in the name of Christ, though they were commanded to liap- tize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Acts viii. 16 ; xix, 5 ; Matthew xxviii. 19) ; for all the divine gifts held forth in baptism are found in Christ alone. And yet it cannot but be that he who baptizes in the name of Christ has also invoked the name of the Father and the Spirit. We are cleansed by his blood, because our Father appointed him Mediator to effect our reconciliation with himself. Regeneration we obtain from his death and resurrection, only as sanctified by his Spirit, we are im- bued with a new and spiritual nature. Thus, first, John baptized, and thus, afterwards, the apostles, by the bap- tism of repentance for the remission of sins, understand- ing by the term repentance, regeneration, and by the re- mission of sins, ablutions. It is, therefore, perfectly certain that John received the very same commission that was afterward given to the apostles, because the doctrine of both was the same. Both baptized unto repentance and remission of sins in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and remission proceed. Moreover, John pointed out Christ as the Lamb of God, and what more could the apostles add to that ? Ancient writers deny the sameness, as both Chrysostom and Augustine, but their opinions cannot shake the cer- tainty of scripture. Luke asserts that John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Luke iii. 3). The only difference is, that John baptized in the name of him who Avas to come ; the apostles in the name of him who had already come (Luke iii. 16 ; Acts xix. 4). If John's baptism never involved the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, neither did the baptisms of the apostles dur- ing Christ's life-time involve those gifts; yet they are all admitted to be Christian baptisms. I suppose that the thing which imposed on the ancient writers, and made them deny the sameness of the baptisms in question, was because they thought the twelve disciples at Ephesus, who CALVIN^S II^STITUTES. 303 received the baptism of John, were again baptized by Panl (Acts xix. 3-5). When John discriminates (Matt. iii. 11), it is not between his baptism and Christian bap- tism ; he merely contrasted his own person with that of Christ, John baptizing only with water and our Lord with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost in tongues of fire. What can any minister now say more than that he bap- tizes with water ? The things which we have said respecting mortifica- tion and ablution, were adumbrated to Israel, who were, as the apostle said, baptized both in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. x. 2). Mortification Avas figured when the Lord carried them through the sea, but drowned Pharaoh and his hosts. In this way he promises us, and by a sign, which is baptism, shows us that he leads, and mightily delivers us from our bondage of sin ; we thus see our Pharaoh, which is the devil, drowned, though he still tries to harass us, as the Israelites were terrified by the body of Pharaoh cast out upon the shore, though he could not hurt them. Our adversary still threatens, shows his arm, and is felt, but cannot conquer. On the other hand, the cloud was a symbol of purification and ablution (]Srum. ix. 18), for it covered and protected Israel from the heat of the sun, and so in baptism, we perceive that we are covered and protected by the blood of Christ, lest the wrath of God, that intolerable flame, should lie upon us. Thus the fathers, whom God had adopted as heirs, w^ere furnished with both badges. Some long ago taught, and some still maintain, that by baptism we are set free from original sin, and the corrup- tion propagated by Adam to all his posterity, and all re- stored to the same holy nature which he lost by his fall. But these men understand neither what is meant by original sin, nor original righteousness, nor the grace of baptism. Calvin seems to refer here to the Anabaptists. Bap- tism can perform of itself neither of these things. In Book II., Chap, i.. Sec. 8, he had explained that original sin is the corruption of our nature by the fall, which first makes us liable to the wrath of God, and then perpetuates itself in the conduct of ever^^ human life. He identifies 304 MY LIFE AND TIMES. tlie nature, and the acts which it prodnces, on the anthor- ity of Paul (Romans v. 12). A nature which produces only sinful acts is to be treated like a sinful person. This corrupt nature is not to be removed by baptism, but con- tinues to be the torment of every believer till death. So Calvin continues: ''Two things must be distinctly observed, viz., that we are vitiated in all parts of our nature, and then, on account of this corruption, are justly held to be condemned before God, who can tolerate only purity, innocence and righteousness. And hence even infants are corrupt from their birth, for, although they do not yet show the fruits of unrighteousness, they have its seeds within them. ISTay, their whole moral nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and, therefore, odious and abominable to God." In the remainder of this paragraph immediately fol- lowing the words of Calvin just set down as to infants, he signifies that such being the sinful nature in which we are all born, derived from our first father Adam, in whose disobedience, as represented by him, we do all partake, and such the penalty to which this sinful nature, and the sinful acts which continually flow from it, justly expose us, baptism comes to every believer with the assurance that of all these, our sins, original and actual, through faith in Christ, he has received full and entire remission. It also assures him that he has obtained righteousness, such righteousness as the people of God can obtain in this life, viz., by imj)utation, only God, in his mercy, for Christ's righteousness' sake, regarding them as righteous and innocent. Thus this corruption of nature never ceases in us, but constantly produces new fruits, viz., the works of the flesh, just as a burning furnace perpetually sends forth flame and sparks, or a living fountain, waters ; for concu- piscence never wholly dies in mankind until, freed by death from the body of death, they have altogether laid aside their own nature (Book III., Chap, iii., Sec. 10-13). Baptism indeed tells us that our Pharaoh is drowned, and sin mortified ; not so, however, as no longer to give us trouble, but only so as not to have dominion ; for, as long as we live, the remains of sin dwell in us, but CALVIX^'s INSTITUTES. 305 thej shall neither rule nor reign. Meanwhile, let ns not cease to contend strenuonslv, and press on to complete victory. All this Paul expounds most clearlv in Romans sixth and seventh chapters. Because justification is free and accompanied with regeneration, and because we have a pledge of this regeneration in baptism, believers must not let sin reign in their members. But, because of the infirmitj in all believers, Paul adds, for their consolation, that they are not under the law, but under grace. Again, because there is danger that thev might grow presump- tuous, because they are not under the law, he explains what is the nature of that abrogation, and what is the use of the law. He tells us that we are freed from the rigor of the law, in order that we might adhere to Christ, and that the office of the law is to convince us of our depravity, and make us feel our impotence and wretchedness. Then, to show the extreme malignity of our sinful nature, he illustrates by its working even in a regenerate man, and that man is himself. He, therefore, describes his constant struggle with indwelling sin. Hence he is forced to groan and exclaim, "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me," etc. (Romans vii. 24). But lest the children of God should feel anxious about the result of this dreadful struggle, which they have to encounter, he therefore adds, for their comfort, there is "now no condem- nation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. viii. 1). The second end of baptism is to serve for our confess- ing him before men. First, it is a mark by which we openly declare that we wish to be ranked among the peo- ple of God ; secondly, by it we concur with all Christians in the worship of one God, and in one religion ; in short, by it we publicly assert our faith, so that not only do our hearts breathe, but our tongues also, and all the members of our bodv, in every w^ay they can, proclaim the praise of God. We come now to the second part of baptism, which may be included under four heads. First, as to the way in which we are to use and receive it. We are to receive it as from the hand of its author ; it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign ; who washes and purifies us ; 306 MY LIFE A]XD TIMES. who effaces the remembrance of our faults ; who makes us partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, weakens the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him, we may be accounted the children of God. These things we ought to feel as truly and certainly in our mind as we see our body washed with water. In the corporeal we ought to see the spiritual. By this badge the Lord is pleased to declare that he bestowed all these things upon us. I^or does he merely feed our eyes with bare show ; he effectually per- forms what he figures. What I have said is illustrated in the case of Cornelius. After first receiving the grace of the Spirit, he was bap- tized for the remission of sins, not seeking a fuller for- giveness from baptism, but a surer exercise of faith ; nay, an argument for assurance from a pledge. But why did Ananias say to Paul that he washed away his sins by baptism ? (Acts xxii. 16). All, then, that Ananias meant to say was, ''Be baptized, Paul, that you may be assured that your sins are forgiven you; in baptism the Lord promises forgiveness of sins ; receive it and be secure." I would not detract from the power of baptism, but would add to the sign the substance and the reality. From this sacrament, as from all others, nothing is to be gained, ex- cept as it is received by faith. The second head is as to the worthiness or unworthi- ness of the minister. The sacrament being from the hand of God himself, its dignity neither gains nor loses by the administrator, just as when a letter is properly signed and sealed, its value does not depend on the hand of the messenger. It was the error of the Donatists of old to measure the efficacy of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister. Such is the error of the Catabaptists in our day, who deny that we are properly baptized, because wicked men and idolaters in the papacy baptized us. We Avere initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and, therefore, our baptism was not of man, but of God. It did not harm the Jews that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. Tliat did not nullify the symbol so that it had to be repeated. CALVIN^S i:!JSTITUTES. 307 Calvin adds that, being baptized himself in the Romish church, he got the sign without faith, and so it was with him for some years, and that afterwards when he got the faith, he needed not the repetition of the sign. The third head is as to the corrupt and the genuine mode of baptism, i^ot satisfied with the ordinance ad- ministered according to the precept of Christ, the audac- ity of men has devised various corruptions to pollute the true consecration of water, e. g., the benediction, or rather the incantation ; then the taper, the chrism, the exorcism, the spittle, and other follies constituting an adventitious farrago. How much better, laying aside all these inven- tions of men, to bring forward the candidate, and present him to God, the whole church looking on as witnesses, and praying over him, with the recitation of the Confes- sion of Faith, in which the catechumen has been in- structed, and the explanation of the promises given in baptism, and then baptism in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the whole concluding with prayer and thanksgiving. Whether the person baptized is to be Avholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence. Churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, al- though it is evident that the term baptize means to im- merse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church. The fourth head is, who are to administer sacraments ? This is always a part of the ministerial office. Christ commanded only apostles, and those who should succeed them to baptize. The same is true of the Lord's supper. Baptism by laics, when a minister cannot be had, dates back to early times, but it cannot be defended. The Council of Carthage (A. D. 412) decreed that women might not baptize. As to children dying in infancy, whether baptized or unbaptized, their salvation is in- cluded in the promise to be a God to us and to our chil- dren. How much evil has been caused by the dogma, ill expounded, that baptism is necessary to salvation, few perceive, and therefore think caution the less necessary; for, when the opinion prevails that all children are lost 308 MY LIFE AND TIMES. who happen not to he baptized, our condition becomes worse than that of God's ancient people,. as if his grace were more restrained than under the law, since the prom- ise, which was then effectual in itself to confer salvation before the eighth daj, would not now be effectual without the help of a sign. What the custom was before Augustine's day (A. D. 354-430), we gather from Tertullian (A. D. 200), who savs that a Avoman is not permitted to speak in the church, nor yet to teach, or baptize, or offer, that she may not claim to herself any office of the man, not to say of the 2)riest. So Epiphanius (A. I). 375) upbraids Marcian with giving women permission to baptize, and says that not even the Holy Mother of Christ had this permission. The example of Zipporah (Exodus iv. 25) is irrele- vantly quoted. As we nowhere read that the command to circumcise was specially given to priests, but as to baptism the words are plain, being addressed to ministers, "Go ye, therefore, and baptize," it is then a sin for wo- man to baptize, because she puts asunder what God has joined together. But this I pass, only insisting that Zipporah was not actually performing any service to God, but, fretting and indignant, she was just upbraiding her husband, and giving offence to God, and her whole procedure was dictated by passion. But to make an end of this question, it is sufficient to say that children, who depart this life before baptism, are not thereby excluded from the kingdom of heaven. The covenant of God with parents is not in itself weak. Its power depends not upon baptism, nor any accessories. The sacrament is just a seal, added to God's promise, merely to confirm our faith in it. The children of be- lievers are not aliens to the church, nor are they baptized in order that they may thus become children of God, but they are received into the church because, by virtue of the promise, they previously belonged to the body of Christ. Hence, if in our having failed to make use of the sign, if there was neither sloth nor contempt nor negligence, we are safe from all danger. By far the better course, therefore, is to pay such respect to the ordinance of God as not to seek the sacraments in any other quarter than Calvin's institutes. 309 where the Lord has deposited them. When we are not allowed to take them from the church, the grace of God is not so inseparably annexed to them that we cannot ob- tain it by faith, according to his word. The sixteenth chapter treats of Picdobaptism — its ac- cordance with the institution of Christ, and the nature of the sign. This chapter is divided thus : I. Confirmation of the orthodox doctrine of Psedobaptism (Sec. 1-9). The remainder of this chapter, being refutation of the arguments which the Anabaptists urge against Psedobap- tism, and special objections of Servetus refuted, will be passed over. In this age, frenzied spirits (the Anabaptists) have raised great disturbance in the church, and even now con- tinue to raise disturbance on account of Piedobaptism. The ground on which they make the assault is that Psedo- baptism is not of apostolic origin, but devised by human j)resumption afterwards. l\ow, all Christian people must agree that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies, but depends chiefly on the promise, and the spiritual mysteries to typify which the ceremonies them- selves are appointed. We must not stop short at the ele- ment and corporeal object, but look to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets therein represented. It remains, therefore, to in- quire into the nature and efiicacy of baptism. Scripture shows that it points, first, to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ, and, secondly, to participation in his death and rising, so that the flesh is mortified, and nature regenerated, and believers have fel- lowship with Christ. To these general heads may be referred all that the Scriptures teach about baptism, but it must be added that pabtism is a testifying of our religion before men. ^nTow, in respect to the two signs of circumcision and baptism given to the people of God, let us see in what they resemble each other, and in what they differ. When God gave circumcision to Abraham, he set himself before him as a God unto him and to his seed, adding that in himself was the perfect sufficiency for all things, and that Abra- 810 MY LIFE AND IIMES. ham might reckon on his hand as a fountain of every blessing. Eternal life was included in this promise, for so Christ explains it to the Jews in Matthew xxii. 32, and Paul also in Ephesians ii. 12, when showing to the Ephesians how great the deliverance God had given them from their original heathen state. He says to them that then they were aliens from the covenant of promise, with- out God and without hope, because without the sign in their previous state of uncircumcision. Xow, the first access to God, the first entrance to immortal life, is the remission of sins. Hence we see that circmncision cor- responds to the promise of our cleansing in baptism. Again God covenants with Abraham that he is to walk before him and be perfect, Avhere we plainly see mortifi- cation and regeneration, even as Moses afterwards calls on Israel to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts ; and thus is explained what is signified by that carnal circum- cision. We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them, both the for- giveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Be- sides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision. Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. I propose to state definitely the exact doctrine of Calvin on the Lord's supper. He begins by referring to our Lord's saying, in John vi. 51, "I am the living bread." Of the invisible food we get from the body and blood of Christ, the bread and wine are signs. The secret union with Christ of the believer being an incomprehensible mystery, the signs chosen jto set it forth are simple and familiar, because such are adapted to our capacity. The object of this sacrament, then, is to assure us of the sacri- fice of Christ's body and blood to be our spiritual food, and God renews the promise every time the cup is offered to us. The force of the sacrament is in the words, ''Take, eat, this is my body and blood broken and shed for you." We are to take, because it is ours ; to eat, for it is one sub- CALVIN^S INSTITUTES. 311 stance with its ; and it was not for himself, but for ns, he took flesh, and then sacrificed it. The sacrament, then, is not a mere sign of these things, but a seal to confirm the promise in John vi. Christ took not the appellation "Bread of Life" from the sacrament ; but, as such, he was given to us from eternity by the Father ; and, as such, he took our nature, and makes us partake of his ; as such, he bore our curse, was made our sacrifice, and raised our corruptible flesh to glory and in- corruption. In other words, John vi. preceded, not fol- lowed, the sacrament which sealed and confirmed the promise it sets forth. All these benefits we get by the gospel, and still more clearly by the sacrament, which assures us of what Christ said, "The bread which I Avill give is my flesh, for the life of the world." Here, say some, the eating is just believing. It is in- deed by faith, but faith is not the whole of it. It is rather a consequence of faith. Just as "the dwelling of Christ in our heart by faith" is not simple believing, but a consequence of it. Augustine, indeed, well says that we eat 'by believing, but all he meant was that the eating is not by the mouth, but of faith. Only Christ, it should be added, is not far oft' ; but we are imited to him as mem- bers to the head. Others say we do have some kind of communion with Christ, but it is spiritual, and not of his flesh and blood ; whereas he says. "My flesh is meat indeed," and that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood. Here now is a mystery, spoken by Christ, to be felt, rather than understood, of which Calvin says that he always feels that he falls below the dignity of it whenever he does his utmost to set it forth. He can only break forth in admiration of what the mind cannot comprehend nor the tongue express. What, then, exactly is this sub- lime mysterv of which he proceeds now to ffive a brief summary *. First, says he, the sacred Scriptures teach that Christ is the eternal fountain of life. "He was the Word, and in him was life." ISText, this life was manifested in hu- 312 MY LIFK A^•D TIMES. man form, for, as man had lost life by the fall, there re- mained no hope of life for him, except as he might be restored to it through communion with the Word. It could avail us nothing for life to be in the distant Word, but if he comes nigh, and takes our flesh, and makes it vivifying for us — that is, joins himself to our flesh and joins us to him bj his Spirit — we may then hope. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, and the bread I will give for the life of the Avorld is my flesh." Life now is in our flesh, and we can reach it by the easiest access, by just throwing open our hearts and embracing it by faith ; that is, by faith we can become one with him, both in flesh and spirit, and enjoy all he is and all he has. Xow this flesh of Christ naturally was mortal, just like ours, and not life-giving, but he pervades it with life in order to transmit it to us. So he declares, "As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself " — meaning, of course, to the Son as he has become flesh. Thus the flesh of Christ is become a reservoir of the water of life, constantly drawn from by believers through faith, and constantly replenished from the spring-head of his Godhead. It is for this reason we must be in communion with his flesh, and be members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. "This," says Paul, '*is a great mystery." He feels unable to utter it, and so expresses his amazement without explaining it to us. Calvin's idea evidently is that we, lost and dead sin- ners, could never reach the infinite source of life, nor he us, except in this one way of his coming nigh to us in flesh, and making himself one with us, so as afterwards, in the same way, to make us one with him, that is, par- taking of our nature, that he might make us to partake of his. \\e must, therefore, have communion of his li:^e, which is lodged for us in the reservoir of his flesh. Life comes not to us from God, but from God-man. The Son of God is the eternal source of life. But the difficulty is for that life to reach fallen man. There is a legal diffi- culty which justification removes. But does there not remain a difficulty as to the vital connection ? Must there not be some natural tie of life betwixt the Redeemer and his people ? Such there clearly was betwixt the first Calvin's institutes. 313 Adam and his members. He was their head, and they got their life through and from him. This was no figurative or imaginary tie, but a real, vital one, neces- sary to his being their representative. And must there not be a vital union also between the second Adam and his people ? ]Srow, the way in which this comes about is that he takes our nature on him, and then gives us his nature, and so we become indeed one. He takes our flesh, and gives us his Spirit, and so establishes a real communion of life with us through his flesh and blood by the Holy Ghost. Thus, he says, Christ's flesh and blood feed our souls, as bread and wine our bodies, and these signs would have no aptitude as feeding our bodies if our souls were not fed by communion with the life which is in his flesh. And he calls on us now to let our faith conceive what our minds cannot understand, viz., that the Spirit can truly unite things separate in space. By a sacred communion of his flesh and blood, Christ transfuses life into us by faith ; and this he testifies to us, and confirms to us in the supj^er through the efficacy of the Spirit, so that it is no empty sign. Only believers, therefore, get what is set forth in these signs. It will not do to say that the language of Paul, "The cup of blessing, is it not the communion of the blood, and the bread, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?" is only figiirative. It is indeed figurative, but there is a reality figured in this language. God does not deceive by holding forth an empty symbol. The Lord puts the symbol into your hand to assure you that you truly par- take of him. Passing from this discussion with the undervaluers of the sacrament, to show the absurdity of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and that also of consubstantiation,. (where he never minces words with the Lutherans), we find him setting forth what kind of presence of Christ there is in the supper, viz., such as neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses him in bread, nor cir- cumscribes him in any way, nor divests him of his just dimensions, nor dissevers him by differences of place, nor assigns him a body of boundless dimensions, diffused. 314 MY LIFE AND TIMES. tlirongh heaven cand eartli. There must be nothing derog- atory to his heavenly glory, nothing inconsistent v^ith his true and real and proper human nature. In other words, it is not any physical presence of his body at all, but only his spiritual presence by faith. And then we come to his grand reiteration of his inability to comprehend the great mystery which Paul had not undertaken to explain. "I will not be ashamed," says the great, because humble, Genevese, "that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend, or my words to express; and, to speak more plainly, I rather feel than understand it. The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace without controversy. He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul ; I give my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his sacred supper he bids me take, eat and drink his body and blood, under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that he will truly give and I receive." Let tran- substantiators and consubstantiators, and all others who exaggerate the sacraments on the one side, and let Socin- ians and Eationalists, and all other depredators of them on the other, say what they will, we admire more than we can express the consummate skill and masterly power with which, with the Word for his rule and the Spirit his guide, Calvin steered betwixt Scylla and Charybdis, and framed for us a statement of revealed truth on this difficult subject, which makes it not level to our compre- hension, of course, but yet not confused or self-contra- dictory. ISTow, Dr. Cunningham says that (Jalvin makes an effort in all this "to bring out something like a real influence exerted by Christ's human nature upon the souls of be- lievers in connection with the dispensation of the Lord's supper, an effort which was, of course, unsuccessful, and resulted only in what was about as unintelligible as Lu- ther's consubstantiation. This is, perhaps, the greatest blot in the history of Calvin's labors as a public instruc- tor; and it is a curious circnmstance that the influence which seems to have been chiefly efficacious in leading him astray in the matter, was a quality for which he usually o-ets no credit, viz., an earnest desire to preserve unity and Calvin's institutes. 315 harmony among the different sections of the Christian church" (Theol. Reformation, p. 240). ISTow I have great respect for William Cunningham, but more for John Calvin. I hardly know any modern writer whom I esteem more highly than Cunningham, and this is perhaps the only blot I ever discovered upon any of his writings. There are three points made against Calvin in this statement by Cunningham. One is that he errs in his doctrine of the sacrament; another, that his doctrine is as unintelligible as Luther's ; and a third, that he was led into the error by a weak desire for peace and harmony. Let us glance at these in the reverse order. First. As to the allegation that Calvin was misled into the error charged by overwhelming anxiety to please the Lutherans, the chapter we have just been considering bears us out in a denial of the correctness of the state- ment.* Calvin did, as we all know, earnestly desire to prevent the Lutherans and the Zwinglians from separat- ing; but it is, we are persuaded, a gratuitous allegation that this desire led him to turn and twist his doctrine into such a shape as would please either party. This same statement, in a milder form. Dr. Hodge makes, saying, in effect, that one great object of his life was to effect a com- promise between these parties {Bib. Rep., 1848, p. 229). I have never fully examined what evidence there may be for this charge, but I am well satisfied, from my ac- quaintance with his writings, that it would not be diffi- cult to defend Calvin's complete integrity in the premises, and to show that he holds strictly and tenaciously to a doctrine Avhich he considers to be written down in the word. !N"ext. As to the unintelligibleness of the doctrine, I have yet to learn that that quality is any absolute proof that a doctrine is not true. If consubstantiation, or if transubstantiation itself were but revealed in God's word, we could not object to their being mysterious. Does Dr. Cunningham mean to say that he finds the Trinity, or the * See the strong, and even offensive, terms in which he speaks of consubstantiation in Book IV., cxvii., §§ 16-19; and also see the language he uses in his controversies with Westphal and Heshusius. 316 MY LIFK AND TIMES. hinniliation of the second Person, or the omnipresence of God, or the connection of sovereignty and free agency, all very easy to be understood ? For one, I see no self-contra- dictoriness in Calvin's doctrine, and am not stumbled at its mystery. We find mystery al)0ve and beneath and around and within ns, and if we were to abandon all the mysterious doctrines which are imintelligible to our weak comprehension, Ave should just abandon our whole faith. The whole of Christianity moves in the s]ihere of the supernatural. Thirdly. As to the falseness of this doctrine, which is "the only blot on Calvin's teaching," if Cunningham, with his patience, and his learning, and his candor, and fairness, had gone into a statement of the grounds of this judgment which he pronounced, there would liave been more satisfaction afforded us, and possibly we might have been convinced by the great Scotch divine. But as he only affirms, and that very briefly, of course, T need waste no time in_examining the point. Touching the difficulty which there is in comprehend- ing Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's supper, let it be re- membered that the subject itself is mysterious. Hear Dr. Charles Hodge on this point, "The Lord's supper is by all Christians regarded as exhibiting, and, in the case of believers, confirming, their union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Whatever obscurity rests on that union must, in a measure, rest on this sacrament. That union, however, is declared to be 'a. great mystery.' It has always, on that account, been called ^the mystical union.' We are, there- fore, demanding too much when we require all obscurity to be banished from this subject. If the union between Christ and his people were merely moral, arising from agreement and syiupathy, there would be no mystery about it, and the Lord's supper, as the symbol of that union, Avould be a perfectly intelligible ordinance. But the sacred Scriptures teach us that our union with Christ is far more than this. It is a vital union — we are par- takers of his life, for it is not we that live, but Christ that liveth in us." * * Biblical Repertory, 1848. CALVIN^S INSTITUTES. 317 Thus Dr. Hodge, and I may put now wliat Dr. Cun- ningham said unwisely, by way of objection to Calvin's doctrine, about its being unintelligible, with these wise and scriptural words of Dr. Hodge, concerning the im- possibility of its being an intelligible ordinance, as sym- bolizing a union, which, confessedly, is not intelligible to any mortal mind. Let me add that Dr. Hodge thus states the points re- lating to this union of Christ and believers, about which there is a general agreement amongst Christians : 1, A federal relation by divine constitution. 2, On Christ's part, a sharing of our nature. 3, A participation by us of the Spirit of Christ, and his indwelling within us. 4, This union relates to body as well as soul ; our bodies are temples of the Spirit, and even in the grave they are still united by the Spirit unto Christ. All these features of the union are certainly not a little unintelligible, and yet, being revealed, "almost all Christians," says Dr. Hodge, "believe them.'' He adds, "This union was always repre- sented as a real union, not merely imaginary, nor simply moral, nor arising from the mere reception of the benefits which Christ has procured." Dr. Hodge might have still further added that this union is no mere figure of speech, for, of course, he means so. And to make his statement fully and thoroughly Calvinistic, he should have added a fifth particular of the Christian faith, viz., that we all partake of his flesh and blood in the sacrament. Dr. Hodge proceeds, in the article whence I have drawn these statements, to examine : 1. Those authorities which express the Swiss views. 2. Those which present the views of Calvin. 3. Those symbols in which both sides concurred. And then in conclusion, 4. He proposes to analyze and state their meaning. Let us accompany him in this investigation. 1. The Swiss Confessions, referred to by Dr. Hodge, are the Confessio Tetrapolitana, the first Basel and the first Helvetic. The last named protests against the rep- resentation that the Reformed look upon sacraments as mere badges of profession, asserting that they are also signs and means of grace. It calls the supper "coena mys- 318 MY LIFE AND TIMES. tica, in which Christ truly offers his body and blood, and hence himself, to his people," bnt says, "The body and blood are not naturally united with the bread and wine, or locally included in them or sensibly there present." In ''The Sincere Confession of the Ministers of the Church of Zurich," the supper is said to be for "remembrance of the body and blood, devoted and shed for remission of our sins." This is "by faith," which renders them "present, in one sense, to the soul of the believer." "To believe is to eat, and to eat is to believe." "There is no other life- giving food in the supper than believers get elsewhere." "Christ's flesh has done its work on earth, no longer bene- fits on earth, and is no longer here." Observe now that every one of these statements Calvin accepts readily, and that they diifer not at all from what he employs. Zwingle himself is quoted as saying that the natural substantial body of Christ is in heaven, and is not eaten "corporeally in the supper, but spiritually only," and this is "to rely on the goodness and mercy of God throusch Christ." Dr. Hodge distinguishes, in a note, betwixt the doctrine ac- tually held by Zwingle and the name Zwinglian, which is popularly applied to the Socinian doctrine of the sacra- ments being mere signs. 2. Let us pass to the views of Calvin, and of the Confes- sions formed under his influence. In stating Calvin's view of this matter. Dr. Hodge naturally goes to the In- stitutes, Book IV., Chap. xvii. ; but he quotes from sec- tion 10, instead of from sections 8 and 9. The conse- quence is not a full and clear statement, but an imperfect, partial, and unsatisfactory one. The reader will remem- ber that Calvin says Christ is the eternal source of life, was manifested in our nature to restore it to us when lost, and to bring it nigh when afar off ; that his flesh, natur- ally mortal like ours, was pervaded with life, in order to transmit life to us, and is a reservoir constantly dra^\ni from by all believers, but replenished continually from the eternal spring-head of his divinity ; that we must be in communion with this flow of life coming down from the very throne of God itself, or else have no life in us; that we must be members of his body, and of one spirit with him, or be dead. ISTow, this union, Paul savs, is a CALVIN^S INSTITUTES. 319 great mystery, and the great Genevese humbly professes that he feels, but does not understand it. There is cer- tainly, however, no great difficulty in apprehending his statement of the mysterious doctrine. Surely, the prince of the reformers does not talk any unmeaning jargon. His views, derived directly from scripture, he puts into plain and simple words. It is possible, however, of course, to misapprehend and to misrepresent him, and this can hardly be avoided, if one gives only a partial statement of his doctrine. What I have to say, therefore, touching Dr. Hodge's account of Calvin's views is (Hibernice) that it could not possibly be clear or complete, seeing that it is so very incomplete. Undertaking to set forth the view Calvin gives of this mystery, Dr. Hodge unfortu- nately begins near the close of Calvin's brief summary, and the result, of course, is that we have no intelligible account of his doctrine. The Confessions, formed under C-alvin's influence, which Dr. Hodge refers to, and from which he makes quotations setting forth the same views which he held, are : (1) The Galilean, adopted by Protestants of France in 1559; (2) the Scotch, adopted'in 1560; and ( ;] ) the Bel- gic (or Dutch), adopted in 1561. The testimonies of these Confessions are all as direct and strong as possible in favor of the doctrine of Calvin. And they constitute the most important symbols of the Reformed religion, representing the doctrines held by the French, the Scotch, and the Dutch churches. There were no more important sections of the Keformed than these three. It may be worth while to refer, just here, to testimony from another most important quarter, though dating nearly one century later. I refer to the Westminster Confession, which is acknowledged at this day by untold numbers of the descendants and followers of the Re- formed. Its language is, "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly, by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being not corporally or car- 320 MY LIFE AND TIMES. nally in, witli, or under the bread and wine, yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." 8. We come to those Confessions in which Zwiugiians and Calvinists agreed. The first one referred to by Dr. Hodge is the Consensus Tigurinus, or the Agreement of Zurich. It was published with the title "Consent of Ministers of Zurich and of John Calvin, Minister of Geneva." Dr. Hodge says very truly that "in these articles there is not a word which any of the evangelical churches of the present day would de- sire to alter" (page 238). But he also alleges that Cal- vin's view is excluded from it (page 251). This is a remarkable statement. Let us recur to the history of this document. Let it be observed, first and foremost, that there were no very great diiferences betwixt the Swiss churches of Geneva and Zurich, touching the sacraments. There were at this period (twenty years or so after Zwin- gle's death) some differences — the remains of the wide separation betwixt Zwingle and Luther. It was easy to exaggerate these, and most desirable that they should be composed. In 1549, therefore, Calvin, accompanied by Beza, goes to Zurich to confer with Bullinger. He had previously written these articles with his own pen. Bul- linger and the others accept them. Beveridge, the com- petent translator of so many of Calvin's works, describes the conference between these brethren as one where per- sonal intercourse drew their hearts together, and they found themselves far better agreed than was supposed before, but he observes, "If any who subscribed the agree- ment must be understood by so doing to have changed the views they had previously entertained, he (Calvin) was not of the number, as there is not one of the articles Avliieh he had not maintained in one or other of his works." He adds that the effect of it was to convince many Lutherans how unjust it was to say that the Zwin- glians held to no sort of real presence at all, and it was confidently expected that out of it would flow the realiza- tion of Calvin's constant hope — a great Protestant league on the basis of that agreement. In view of these facts, CALVIN^S INSTITUTES. 321 which cannot be denied, it is preposterous to say that Calvin had left his own view of the sacrament out of the Consensus. For, of course, if he thus yielded everything to the Zwing'lians, what hope would have remained of his satisfying, by any such statement, the Lutheran expecta- tions ? It is manifest, of course, that, having Lutherans, as Avell as Zwinglians to convince, he could not have failed to insert something considerable touching the pres- ence of the body and blood in the sacrament. But I have further proof of this to offer. In the midst of all the bright hopes that a great Protestant union was about to take place, Joachim Westphal, minister of the Lutherans at Hamburg, a man unequal to the discussion of such a question, but scurrilous and virulent, attacks the Con- sensus, and, amongst other points, makes this very one that Calvin had abandoned his o\vn opinions. For rea- sons which I have not time to detail, Calvin thought best to stoop so far as to reply to this man, and publishes his "exposition" of the agreement. And here he shows, in forcible terms, how and where the Consensus did set forth clearly, though mildly, his peculiar views. Second in the class of Confessions accepted by both Zwinglians and Calvinists, Dr. Hodge has put the Heidel- berg Catechism. He might, with just as good reason pre- cisely, have put the Gallic, Scotch, and Belgic Confes- sions, which he calls strictly Calvinistic, for they are no stronger than it is in declaring Calvin's view. The truth is, as is evidenced in the Consensus Tigurinus, that there was a substantial harmony between Calvin and the Swiss, notwithstanding their differences. Calvin would have had little trouble, if what he aimed at had been to unite Avith himself merely the Zurich brethren. But his great idea was a grand union of all the Protestants, and the difficulty was to bring the extremes to meet. He stood in the true scripture middle with his doctrine of the real, spiritual communion, while Luther had gone to one ex- treme and Zwingle to the other. But Zwingle is dead. Most of the Swiss (see Henry. IT., p. 70) have already adopted Calvin's higher views, if, indeed, Zwingle did not himself forsake his own lower ones. Out of regard to Zwingle, however, they do not openly confess the change 322 MY LIFE A.\D TIMES. as yet. There is no proof, however, that Biilliu<;cr wa?? what Dr. llodge represents (page 242), '^tlie great oppo- nent of what was considered peculiar in Calvin's views." ISTow, the history of the Heidelberg Catechism may be given thus: Frederick III., the elector of the Palatinate, after a very violent disturbance in his kingdom, created by one Tilemann Heshuss, a lAitheran, whom Calvin had severely castigated, had this catechism drawn up by Cas- per Olevian, a disciple of Calvin, and Ursinus,a friend of Melanchthon, the object being to state the moderate Cal- vinistic view of the real presence, as against the Lutheran extreme. There was no question raised in all tlu^ agita- tions and conflicts which gave rise to this venerable sym- bol, concerning the reality of Christ's presence in the supper, but only concerning the mode. Was it by the mouth that Christ was received in the supper, or was it by faith ? Heshuss is so violent that Frederick, who suc- ceeded to the electorate in the midst of his fierce denuncia- tions, not only dismisses him from office, but determines to establish a rule of faith on this question for his sub- jects, lie consults Melanclithon, who condemns Jleshnss, Luther being now dead and gone, and Frederick decides for the mild or Calvinistic view, and resolves to have the Palatinate become Reformed. In these circumstances, he causes the persons named above to draw up the celebrated formulary, which, being- adopted by a synod at Heidelberg, in 1563, and pub- lished as a confessional standard, has been translated into all modern tongues, honored with countless commentaries, and exalted, by general consent, to the highest authority for the whole Reformed church {Nerin's Mij.sf. Pies., page 83). ]Srow, this famous symbol is perfectly clear in ex- pressing the peculiar doctrine of Calvin. It says Christ ''feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the minister, and taste with my mouth, the bread and cup of the Lord as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ." And it says, ''To eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ is not only to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of CALVIN''s INSTITUTES. 323 Christ, and thereby to obtain the pardon of sin and life eternal ; bnt also, besides that, to become more and more nnited to his sacred body by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in ns, so that we, though Christ is in heaven and we on earth, are, notwithstanding, 'flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone,' and that we live and are gov- erned forever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are by one soul." Also that we are, through the Spirit, as ''really partakers of his true body and blood," as we receive the signs by the mouth. Ur sinus also wrote a commentary on this symbol, in which he expresses in the strongest terms Calvin's peculiar doctrine, which we again call peculiar, inasmuch as it separates him from the Luth- eran, and what is popularly called the Zwinglian doctrine. liow, this Heidelberg Catechism is the symbol of the German Reformed Church, and has received also the en- dorsement of the Eeformed Dutch Church, being solemnly approved by the Synod of Dort, in 1618. It is just an- other Calvinistic symbol, though Dr. Hodge chooses to represent it as one of those where Zwinglians and Cal- vin ists met. Third and last in this class comes the second Helvetic, drawn up by Bullinger after Calvin's death, in 1562, but not of public authority till 1566. The Elector, Frederick III., anxious to meet the extreme intolerance of the Luth- erans at this time against all the Reformed, but him and his subjects particularly, and desirous to make, at the imperial diet, which was at hand, as fair a showing as he could for the side he has espoused, writes to Bullinger for some such statement as might serve to repress the cavils of the Lutherans. Bullinger sent to him this formulary, which, to give it more authority, was subjected to the other Helvetic, or Swiss churches, and being generally approved, it comes to be kno^^^l as the proper Swiss Con- fession. jSTow, as Bullinger wrote this symbol. Dr. Hodge says, of course, we must expect to find in it nothing but what the Zurich ministers could cordially adopt, seeing that Bullinger was Zwingle's successor at Zurich, and the "great opponent of Calvin's peculiar view!" (Pages 242 and 250.) Referring, tlieii, to the second Helvetic, we find it full 324 MY LIFE AND TIMES. and clear in the statement of Calvin's peculiar doctrin(\ albeit written, as Dr. Hodge says, by the chief opponent of it ! It says, "Believers receive what is given by the minister of the Lord, and eat the Lord's bread and. drink of the Lord's cnp ; inwardly, however, in the meantime, by the work of Christ, throngh the Holy Spirit, they partake also of the Lord's flesh and blood, and are fed by these unto eternal life. For the flesh and blood of Christ are true meat and drink unto eternal life, and Christ himself, as delivered up for us and our salvation, is that which mainly makes the supper," etc. It proceeds to ex- plain what it calls spiritual manducation, which is not *'of a merely imaginary, undefinable food, but the body of the Lord itself delivered up for us, which, however, is received bv believers, not corporally, but spiritually by faith." I have gone far enough with Dr. Hodge, and the re- marks which he offers on all these various Confessions are, in my judgment, so confused and erroneous that I pass them over in silence, except to say, merely, that what- ever objections he makes to Calvin's doctrine, he never once signifies that it is not possible to be understood, or that he does not understand it. And thus I set him over against Dr. Cunningham on this point, and flatter myself that I can knock down the Scotch theologian with his American brother. I may also refer to Schleierraacher, confessedly a great master of ratiocination, as professing that he saw nothing absurd in the Calvinistic theory. I may refer to another great master of it — Dr. R. J. Breck- inridge— as testifying strongly (Subjective Theology, pp. nOG, 007) to the consistency and scripturalness of the same doctrine. I may also speak of the celebrated Walter Marshall, one of the Puritan ministers ejected in 1662 for non-conforming, whose treatise on "The Gospel Mys- tery of Sanctification" was so strongly recommended by the Erskines and by Adam Gib, and is so highly esteemed amongst Calvinists, as setting forth, in the fullest and strongest manner, this same doctrine of the Lord's supper. I can also give my personal testimony to Dr. Thorn- well's having averred that he agreed with Calvin's doc- trine of the Lord's supper. CALVIX^S INSTITUTES. 325 So, too, one shall find, in various portions of John Owen's works, that prince of theologians, very clear and forcible statements of the doctrine taught by Calvin. (See his Sacramental Discourses, 10, 23, 25.) And I can refer, on the other hand, to passages in the works of modern theologians, of more or less repute, for soundness in the faith, who have evidently fallen away very much from the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's sup- per— as Edwards, Ridgley, Hopkins, Bellamy, Dwiglit, Ashbel Green, Dick, and Barnes. The tendencies of the age, especially in [ISTew England, are rationalistic, and even Presbyterians are often too much inclined to suffer a disparagement of the supernatural. Becurring, however, to the facts brought to view in this chapter, the reader perceives that, whereas Luther, on the one hand, and Zwingle on the other, were wide apart, and the former especially obstinate and virulent, as well as extreme, yet the successors of Zwingle were never far apart from Calvin ; and that, accordingly, the first Hel- vetic Confession itself (which Dr. Hodge counts as anti- Calvinist, that is, Zwinglian) uses language which contra- dicts his representation of it, while the Gallic, Scotch, and Belgic Confessions, the Consensus Tigurinus, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the second Helvetic Confes- sion— all of them — are decidedly Calvinistic in their ut- terances. And he will not forget that the great Genevese reformer (great because humble) only undertakes to set before us, what he does not claim to comprehend, the sub- lime mystery revealed in the word of God. It seems to follow that, in accepting his views, we are not only follow- ing in the footsteps of the flock, not only accepting the creed of the Beformed churches — which we believe to be right and true on so many other points where other churches w^ander — but we shall be accepting, also, the very word of God upon the ineffable mystery of the union of the Head and the members. Calvin insists on nothing whatever except the sublime truth of life for us in the incarnation. There is life, of course, in the God absolute; it is infinite and superabounding and everlasting, but not for us. We are creatures, and cannot get access to it ; we are sinners, and it is impossible for us to receive it, if we 326 :S\Y LIFE AND TIMES. could come near to it. And so that life of the absolute God is to us as though it were not ; nay, it is against our life, and dooms us to death forever. But the incarnation is a wondrous divine plan, which procures for us justifica- tion, and a share in the life of God's own Son. But the life which it procures is inseparable from itself. Not God's Son, as such, gives it to us, but God's Son as he is in human flesh. He is not only our representative Head, but we are likewise vitally one with him. He partakes of our flesh, and we partake of his Spirit. His humanity is the connecting link between his Godhead and our man- hood. The flesh of Christ is a reservoir, full of life, con- stantly drawn upon by all his people through the Holy Spirit, and by faith, which unites us to the Saviour ; and this reservoir is itself constantly replenished from the everlasting spring-head. Now, then, Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's supper sim- ply is, that it holds forth and seals to us this most blessed truth. Does the reader see any heresy here ? Does he see any absurdity ? Does he see anything he cannot or ought not to accept ? Our Reformed fathers in France, in Hol- land, in Scotland, in Switzerland, in Germany, accepted it. They were not tinctured in the slightest degree with the rationalism of this age, and they accepted it, as they perceived it in the word. The whole Reformation, except- ing only the Lutherans (and not excepting all of them either, for Melanchthon believed with (^alvin) — the wlioh' Reformation, excepting Luther and his especial followers, accepted the same doctrine with Calvin, and we may safely do the same. CHAPTER X. Reminiscences of the Wak Between the States. THE General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, which met at Roch- ester, N. Y., was no sooner dissolved than I accepted, with my wife, an invitation to revisit Dr. Robert J. Breck- inridge, at his country-seat of Breadalbane, some ten or a dozen miles from Lexington, Ky. The prospective seces- sion of South Carolina would, of course, come up in our conversations. "So South Carolina is going to secede," he said to me. I said, "It seems to be pretty well as- sured." He then said, ''And what stand do you think Kentucky will take ?" My reply was, "I would rather hear your opinion." He answered, "She will stand by South Carolina." I laid my hand on his knee, and said, "I am thankful to hear you say that." But Kentucky did not assume that attitude, and when, subsequently, I re- minded him of what he had said, his reply was, "Oh ! I did not expect Kentucky would allow herself to be drag- ged at the tail of South Carolina." Either I had mis- understood what he said, or else he had changed his ground. I still possess a letter from him, which proved to be a literal ])rophecy in extenso of the results of the war. The election of a sectional president was what actually determined secession of the South. That converted many most earnest opponents. Other multitudes had not fa- vored it, but held their first allegiance due to the State, and not to the Union. In this way. South Carolina be- came practically a unit. Indeed, Woodrow Wilson, speak- ing of the whole South, says that she "had avowedly staked everything, even her allegiance to the Union, upon this election. She knew that the party, which was hotly intolerant of the whole body of Southern institutions and interests, had triumphed in the elections, and was about to take possession of the government, and that it was 328 MY LIFE AN]) TIMKS. niorallv impossible to preserve the Union any longer. 'If yon wlio represent the stronger ])ortion/ (Jalhomi had said in 1850, in words which perfectly convey this feeling in their quiet cadences, 'cannot agree to settle the great questions at issue on the broad principle of justice and duty, say so ; and let the States we both represent agree to separate, and depart in peace.' " The South had long, but vainly, waited for the North's acceptance of this celebrated and most just proposal. When news came that Lincoln was elected, therefore, the South Carolina Legislature called a State convention. This convention met in Charleston on the 20th of Decem- ber, and passed, unanimously, the ordinance of secession, and made provision for the government of the State as a sej^arate sovereignty, and for such exigencies of defence as might arise in case of war. By the first of February, Georgia and four of the Gulf States — Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana — had followed South Caro- lina, and seceded from the TTuiou ; and Texas Avas on the point of joining them. Delegates, appointed by the several conventions in the seceding States, met in Montgomery, Ala., on the 4th of February, 1861, framed a provisional constitution and government for the "Confederate States of America," chose flefferson Davis, of Mississippi, provisional Presi- dent, and Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, provisional Vice-President. In March, a permanent constitution was adopted, to take effect the next year. While the South thus showed herself in earnest, the country at large seemed to be bewildered. The adminis- tration was paralyzed. The States of the Xorth, as Wood- row Wilson well expresses it, ''had not awakened to the national idea. The Federal authorities did nothing. Al- most everywhere, in the North and West, the people were strangely lethargic, singularly disposed to wait and see the trouble Idow over." The masses had not been watch- ing the progress of public affairs, and when the great crisis came, it took them by surprise. Probably neither side expected an actual conflict of arms, and even in the South many did not look for a permanent dissolution of the Union. Some believed that if war came it would not REMINISCENCES OF THE WAR. 329 last three months. It was said that C^olonel Chesniit, ex-member of Congress, held that it would all be arranged, and that he even offered to drink all the blood that was q;oing to be shed. Shortly after the eventful 20th of December, the people of Charleston awakened one morning to the startling news that jMajor Anderson, who commanded the United States garrison at Fort Moultrie, had transferred his company to the much stronger fortress of Sumter. There was great significance in the move, for, no doubt, orders had come to him to this effect from Washington. The United States flag floated for a long time j)eacefully there. But, to many an eye in the city, and to many a heart in the State, it seemed to say that South Carolina was not yet out of the Union. President Buchanan was known to be a weak man, but he had always seemed favorable to the South. He held, as did also his Attorney-General, that there was no constitutional means or warrant for coercing a State to do her duty under the law. When Southern members retired from his Cabinet, naturally they were rej)laced by men of the l^orth. xVfter some time Messrs. James L. Orr and Robert W. Barnwell were sent on as commission- ers to treat with President Buchanan as to the transfer of the national property lying within the State, and espe- cially as to the cession to South Carolina of the forts within her harbor. They presented themselves before the President, and he professed to be willing to give them official recognition, and accordingly so promised. But this promise was not to be fulfilled. As often as the South Carolina commissioners waited on the President to have his promises fulfilled, he would put them off, ou one pretext or another. Meanwhile, as was believed in South Carolina, the Federal government was gaining time for the sending of a fleet to Charleston. The South C^arolina commissioners continued to call on the President and demand to be recognized, and whenever he would try to put them off, Mr. Barnwell would say, ^'But, Mr. President, you have promised." This he could not deny, but he dared not fulfil it. On one occasion, when this accustomed solitary reminder saluted the presiden- tial ear, the old man lost his patience, and burst forth, 330 ]\rY LIFE AND TIMES. "But, Mr. Barnwell, you don't give me time to say my prayers." Still the commissioners were kept waiting, find still they got no recogTiition. The new President was inaugurated ; and now Seward, who became Secretary of State, kept other commissioners, who had been appointed by the Confederate government, still waiting for his de- cision, unofficially holding out hopes of concession through Justice Campbell of the Supreme Court, who wished, if possible, to mediate in the interest of peace. On April Sth, while they waited, formal notice was sent from the Federal authorities, not through these commis- sioners, but directly to Governor Pickens, of South Caro- lina, that the Federal garrison in Fort Sumter would be succored and provisioned. The commissioners, as I re- member the facts, then, of course, returned unrecognized, and the Confederate government at Montgomery, in- formed of the coming of this fleet, ordered Beauregard to attack the fort without delay. The fleet made no attempt to enter the harbor and reach the fort. Such was not the purpose for which it was sent. The administration was not prepared to com- mence hostilities. The astute Secretary's plan simply was, by the appearance of this fleet outside the harbor, to provoke the South to strike the first blow by firing on the flag. The first gun was fired at Sumter from Fort Moultrie on the 12th of April by Edmund Puffin, Esq., an eminent Virginia statesman. Hot shot from Fort Moultrie set on fire the internal wood-work of the fort. The United States flag was lowered. Seward had gained his object. He had fired the I^orthern heart. President Lincoln im- mediately called for seventy-five thousand volunteers. The war was begun. The Bombardment of Chaeleston. It is not my purpose to attempt a history of the war. I am only to speak of events which passed more or less di- rectlv under my personal observation. Charleston, which witnessed the actual beginning of the war, was never cap- tured. The city was long blockaded, and for two years or more was shelled from Morris Island and other points. EKMINISCENCES OF THE WAK, 331 The Federal artillery reduced Fort Sumter to a heap of ruins, but ruined as it was, the Confederates, under the gallant Major Elliott, held it to the last. Working by day and by night, new fortifications were constructed out of the debri?, and the ruined fort, wonderful to relate, was rendered impregnable. The garrison was, of course, re- cruited continually from the city. ISTegro laborers were sent down, and calls were made also on the country dis- tricts for help at this fort, and to strengthen the other fortifications. I was required to furnish two hands to assist in this heavy work. I selected, from my slaves, Ben, surnamed Collins, an active and vigorous young negro, and put with him an elderly man, Daniel, who rejoiced in the surname of Castlebury. The former, with the enthusiasm of youth, was delighted with my selection, and rendered, I have no doubt, very excellent service. Their lot was to be sent to Fort Sumter. These men were both sent back to me after awhile, and they both had accounts to tell which greatly interested us all, white and black. Daniel, especially, told how the large space surrounding the ruined walls, which was covered over with brick-bats, had strong spikes of iron driven down amongst them, to sus- tain wires stretched from one to the other, these being intended to trip up the enemy, should they land in the night time to scale the low walls. Parties, chiefly of negroes, Avere sent out from the fort to work amongst these wires. Sometimes the alarm would be given that the boats of the enemy were approaching, and these laborers would have to retreat within the walls, and old Dan would stumble over these wires in his flight. But the most as- tonishing thing to us all, which Daniel reported, was what he called the "sugary freeze." That puzzled us for awhile, but, when he explained that it had many long pro- jecting points, we were able to understand that he was describing the cheveaux de frise. But a second time I was called on for the same amount of help, and I thought best to send the same two, because the experience they had acquired might enable them best to take care of themselves. Ben Collins made no objec- tion, he rather liked the excitement, but Daniel wished for 332 MY LIFE A^'D TIMES. a substitute. He said he was willing to go, however, if I would promise that he would not be sent to Fort Sumter. He never wanted to see that place again. I explained my lack of power, telling him that they might have to call on me to go there, and I must submit. So down they went, and, lo ! Daniel was appointed nowhere but to hated Fort Sumter, while Ben was sent to Fort Johnson. But when the sloop, which conveyed the relay of hands, arrived at Sumter, old Dan was nowhere to be found. Had he fallen overboard to become a prey to sharks, or had he run away before the sloop started ? There was a lot of scaiitling and boards in the hold of the vessel, and there Dan had secreted himself. But he passed unhurt through his sec- ond service in the dangerous fort, and reached home in safety, while Ben, poor fellow, happening one day to be on the parapet of Fort Johnson, was struck on the arm with the fragment of a shell, and amputation was made necessary. One-armed Ben, as they afterwards called him, wdien emancipation came, took himself to Columbia, and I found him there years afterwards, married and sup- porting himself and family by circulating through the city with a little hand-cart of vegetables, which he sold to families not convenient to the market-place. One sum- mer he paid me a visit at my home, and cheerfully said he could do as much work with his one arm, cutting wood or mauling rails, as any other man. Where the Ashley and the Cooper discharge their waters into the ocean, they had produced a formidable bar, now happily removed, which prevented the entrance of very large vessels, and the fleet made no attempt to enter the harbor, for its smaller vessels dared not en- counter the numerous torpedoes with which the channel was filled. The bombardment of the city was very much dreaded before it began, notwithstanding Beauregard's assurance that it never could produce much visible effect. But, naturally enough, the lower part of the city was, for the most part, forsaken by its inhabitants. St. Michael's steeple was a favorite target for the artillerist, the more because it was known that members of the signal corps occupied it night and day. My nephew, Augustine T. Smythe, was up there many a night, doing signal duty, REMINISCENCES OF THE WAR. 333 and shells sometimes passed near hj, but I think the steeple was never struck. What Beauregard had told us came true ; the city was but little hurt by the bombard- ment, and but few persons were killed or wounded. When Sherman left Savannah on his way to Columbia, Charles- ton was, of course, evacuated. Since the two years' bom- bardment, she has had other visitations more grievous than this, among them cyclone and earthquake, but the historic city still survives and flourishes. Soon after the war began, Columbia Theological Sem- inary was necessarily closed, nearly or quite all the stu- dents having taken their departure to go to the army, and I moved my family to my home in Pendleton. When the bombardment began, I repaired to Charles- ton, packed up my brother James's large and valuable library, his house being in a very exposed situation, car- ried it to Columbia and placed it for safe-keeping in the basement of the central building of the Theological Sem- inary. The furniture of that dwelling house, and of my brother Robert's, had previously been conveyed to Colum- bia, and stored in a warehouse, belonging to my Aunt iSTancy Law, of that city. When, owing to the unfortunate removal by President Davis of General Joe Johnston from the command of our Western army, it failed to overthrow and rout Sherman at Atlanta, as had been confidently expected, and Avhen, accordingly, his unobstructed march through Georgia was bringing him down to Savannah, I went again to Colum- bia, and moved my own large and valuable library in boxes to my aunt's warehouse, and then carried the most of my furniture to the same place. A variety of other matters in my house at the old Bank, in Main street, which I thought would be convenient and needful for our use at Pendleton, I got ready to ship by railroad across Broad river. But a tremendous freshet occurred, and tore away some portions of the bridge. This detained me for some days in Columbia. In the meanwhile an incident occurred significant both of the extreme pressure of those times, as it affected all classes of our people, and also of the high-born dignity with which many Carolina families were able to meet it. 33-i MY LIFE AND TIMES. One of onr citizens, the head of an old Huguenot family, was president of a bank, which had been forced to remove its treasures and its business from Charleston to Colum- bia. He asked me to come around and spend the evening at his house. The war had consumed most of our luxuries of civilized life, amongst them coifee. Many were the substitutes for it we were forced to employ. A favorite one was the seed of the okra plant. Another was roasted cotton seed. Still another was sweet potatoes, cut up, dried, and then parched, and there were a variety of others, each one having its own particular admirers. At supper there sat two ladies, with my host and myself, and in the centre of the table appeared one solitary dish. Our conversation went briskly on. Without the slightest apology, or any reference whatever to the meagerness of the diet, I was courteously invited to partake. It proved to be brown bread, the brownest I had ever beheld in all my life ; but, to all appearance, the whole company found it very good. Whilst enjoying this delicacy,! was asked if I would take cotton-seed coffee, to which I gave assent. It was my first introduction to that substitute, but I found it very refreshing, though, if I remember rightly, there was neither sugar nor cream. We united at the close of the repast in expressing thanks to the kind providence which had once more furnished us with food. Before I left home on this trip to Columbia, having a very valuable pair of carriage horses, and knowing how great would be the danger of their being taken from me, I had determined to sell them. At the opening of the war I had given three fine horses to fit up a cavalry company at Columbia, but this pair of horses were un- suited to cavalry use from their size and weight. Rufus Johnston, president of a bank in Columbia, had offered me $7,000 Confederate money for them, and I had a debt to pay, for which I required the money. The horses had cost me $800, in good money. My carriage driver, Alfred, was a very competent young negro slave, of great intelligence. I had entire confidence in his faithfulness and honesty, as well as capacity. I wrote to Mr. Johnston to accept his oft'er, and dispatched Alfred, with the horses, to Columbia. There were great and various dangers on KEMINISCENCES OF THE WAR. oob his way, but he piloted his charge safely through them all, delivered them to my correspondent, and returned safely home without delay. This will illustrate the relations subsisting between master and slave amongst us, and also that between valuable property and our currency at this period. Before leaving Columbia to return home, being aware of the treatment South Carolina and Columbia might ex- pect to receive from General Tecumseh Sherman, I ac- cepted an offer from a Jewish gentleman, of the name of Jacobs, of $30,000 for my dwelling house, from which I had just removed all the furniture. It was Confederate money. I took it right over to the proper office, and gave it for Confederate bonds. I cannot recall to mind, though I have often tried to do so, what disposition I then made of the bonds. They vanished alike from my possession and recollection. The house for which I got these bonds was built of brick, three stories high, four large rooms on a floor, standing on the main street, with a large lot of land in the rear, with all necessary outbuildings. It had been built for one of the city banks, and was long so em- ployed. When I became professor in the Theological Seminary in 185Y, I purchased it for $7,000 cash. Here is an illustration of the value of real estate in a flourish- ing city, in the anticipation of a visit by a brutal general, at the head of an army thirsting for booty. We were well aware of what he had allowed to be done in his progress through Georgia, but we had also heard of the threats he had made against the people of South Carolina, and against their capital. I now forwarded to Alston, by railroad, the matters I had selected from my house to go to Pendleton. There I had to get a boat to carry them past the broken bridge over the river. Once on the other side, I was able to transport them by railroad to my home in Pendleton. ]^ot long after this, Sherman reached the borders of South Carolina, and then it was that he began, especially, to teach the people, as he said, ''what war means." They had desired war, and he would give it to them. His track was marked all along through this State by the standing chimneys of burnt dwelling houses. Such chimneys were 330 MY LIFE AND TIMES. the moniinients lie erected for hiniself in South Carolina. His war, as he went along, was against women and chil- dren. On the 17th of February his army reached Colum- bia. I leave it to others to describe, in general, the hor- rors that ensued. I shall speak only of what I learned from my aunt, Mrs. Law, and her sister, who was living with her. Like other ladies who needed protection, she had obtained a guard of two or three soldiers. They had appeared civil all the day, and treated her respectfully. But when night came, and the three rocket signals went up, the pandemonium, which broke loose, came to her house, and her guards then joined with their drunken fellows. They all went up stairs together, beginning, she said, at the third story, with their work of robbing and setting fire, and so coming down through the second to the lower story, and then they said to her, ''Old woman, if you don't want to be burnt up, you had better get out of this house." She essayed to go, where her sister had preceded her, with her daughter and a young babe, to the house of Alexander Haskell, on the top of Arsenal Hill, which was not far from her own burning dwelling. But the streets were full of soldiers, many of them drunk, and the houses all on fire. She had been subject to vertigo, and was some three-score and ten years old. She told me that, as she staggered along by herself, she was afraid that she might fall beneath some of the spreading flames. But she reached the Haskell house in safety, and found it full of women and children. Her sister told me she saw the soldiers throwing balls of some material saturated with turpentine, and set on fire, into the warehouse or maga- zine, which had been filled full Avith what we had stored there. Where my aunt passed the next day and night she could not herself tell, and it was only on the second or the third day that some friends found her wandering through her old ruined garden, and she was, by them, re- moved to rooms in the Seminary building, which had been vacated. In the good providence of God, it was so ordered that, in poverty and suffering, she was to find a refuge in Law Hall, a three-story brick building, of many apart- ments, wdiicli had been erected on the Seminary grounds, with money generously given by herself, and it was there. EEMINISCENCES OF THE WAR. 337 after a short time, her long and useful life came to an end. Fort Sumter surrendered to Beauregard on the 13th of April, 1861. Our Theological Seminary at Columbia closed early in the next month. I ministered, during my summer vacation, to the little Mt. Zion congregation, wor- shipping about two miles from my house, in the old church building where I first met the South Carolina Presbytery, in 1852, while looking for a home in the Piedmont country. One of my first ofiicial acts in that congregation was to bury, in their cemetery, two young soldiers, members of that church. They belonged to the Fourth South Carolina Regiment, commanded, in the first Mannassas battle, by Colonel J. B. E. Sloan, of Pen- dleton. The regiment had their position in the thick of that fight, near to Jackson's Virginians. It was to them General Bee, originally himself of Pendleton, and who also fell in the same battle, had addressed his famous ex- hortation, which gave a sobriquet to Jackson, "South Carolinians, be firm ; don't you see how Jackson's men, right there, are standing like a stone wall ?" The South Carolina regiment stood firm, but, after the battle, these two Pendleton young men lost their lives. They were cousins, ^Michael Bollotte and Hillhouse. They were walking together over the bloody field, and, seeing a com- rade of theirs, named Lewis, examining a spent ball, which he had picked up, they, in their thoughtless curi- osity, went up to examine the same. When they were all satisfied, Lewis let the ball drop at their feet. It ex- ploded, and the two cousins were killed on the spot. The Rev. Dr. Thomas L. McBryde, pastor of the Pen- dleton Presbyterian Church, died on the 15th of April, 1863. I had assisted him frequently before his death, and after it ministered to his people till the close of the war. I had many occasions for encouraging their hearts during its progress, and giving them consolation in the bereavements it occasioned. Pendleton and its neighborhood furnished a good many soldiers. Amongst those who never returned there were Captain Warren and Major Wright, both of Camden, whose wives were the daughters of Mr. Robert Maxwell. 338 MY LIFE AND TIMES, There was Edward Maxwell, whose father I have named, who had just graduated at the South Caroliua College. Ezekiel Pickens, who, though he never got to the war, died, on his way thither, at Richmond. There Avas also ]\rajor Kilpatrick, whose body, with that of young Pickens, I committed to their tombs in the old historic Stone Church Cemetery. There were also Tally Simpson, Willie Seaborn, Julius Ross, Earl Lewis, Laurens and Ben Smith, two brothers, and, perhaps, others, Avho all fell in battle. Besides those who never returned, Pendle- ton and its neighborhood sent at least thirty others, some of whom returned quite unhurt, others had been wounded more or less severely, and yet others had suffered impris- onment for a longer or shorter period. But there was one man who went from Pendleton to the war and never returned whose case was specially pitiful. His name was John Hix. He was my overseer for some years, but when, in 1858, I sold Woodburn to my brother Ellison, and moved to Boscobel, this man continued to be the overseer for my brother-. He had a wife and a number of children, besides Billy, a sister's son, whom he had adopted. He was a good man, a Baptist, and he sometimes preached in their Lebanon church. His family would be helpless without him, and he did not volunteer. As the war went on he was drafted, and he was very un- willing to go. He told me that he knew he would be killed in the very first battle. But he went in May, 1863, and his company passed through Charlotte, IST. C, whilst I was in attendance upon our General Assembly at that place. I was the guest of Judge Osborn, and poor John Hix called to see me. He told me he knew he was going to his death. Judge Osborn invited the soldier to remain, and take supper with us. After supper he went on his way with his comrades. A battle took place as soon as he got to the army. John Hix was in it, and a cruel can- non ball tore away his whole stomach, and the soldier fell dead. How dreadful is war ! We helped his family all we could, and I met Billy some years after the war, and he was doing well. But the family drifted out of our sight. 1 must also here add another affecting story, told me REMINISCENCES OF THE WAR. 339 by my friend, Pierson, one of the ministers of South Car- olina Presbytery, who became a chaplain in our army, when Johnston was retreating before Sherman. He found himself at some place below the city of Atlanta, where a train of cars was expected full of Avounded sol- diers. With a number of others, bent on the like errand, he was ready, with a bucket of water and a cup to give it, filled with cold water, to these suffering men. He entered a box-car. Wounded soldiers were strung all around against its sides. He began to administer the cooling draught, when one of them said, "We want the water, but there is a boy there in the extreme corner, who, we think, is dying ; won't you go first and speak to him ?" Mr. Pierson says, "He was dreadfully wounded, and hardly conscious, for to my first questions he made no answer. Anxious to find out who the parents of this dying young soldier were, that I might write to them, I then asked him, 'What is your father's name ?' He answered, 'I am my father's precious jewel.' Then I asked, 'Who is your mother V He said, 'I am my mother's darling boy.' I said, 'Where does your father live V He began, 'Our Fa- ther, which art in heaven,' and slowly, but clearly, re- peating the whole of the Lord's Prayer to the end, and saying, 'Amen,' he breathed his last, and I saw he was gone." The chaplain told me he would give everything he had in the world to have known that boy's name, and where his home was. ^one of the soldiers were able to tell him. When President Davis and his Cabinet found it neces- sary to quit Richmond, their course carried them through the Piedmont portion of South Carolina, but they did not come by Pendleton. One night they lodged at Abbe- ville with my friend, Mr. Thomas C. Perrin, in that spacious and magnificent mansion which was shortly afterwards destroj'ed by fire. In the convention which passed the ordinance of secession, the delegates were called on to sign for their districts in alphabetical order, and so Mr. Perrin, representing Abbeville, signed first of all the secessionists, not only of South Carolina, but of the whole South. It is something of a coincidence that, as he told me himself, they lield their last Cabinet meeting 340 MY LIFE AND TIMES. in his house, agreeing that they wonhl disperse when they left Abbeville. Mr. Benjamin, Secretary of State, who afterwards became a very eminent lawyer in London, said to Mr. Perrin, after that last meeting broke up, "What is the best and safest disposition for me to make of the seal of the Confederacy ?" Mr. Perrin replied, "You are going to cross the Savannah river to-morrow morning, and I would suggest that you consign it to the keeping of that river." Mr. Perrin informed me of these facts himself, and supposed that the seal had been deposited in the mid- dle of that river. But 1 have heard of parties in this State or Georgia who claim to have possession of that seal. We did not hear, at Pendleton, of the removal of the Cabinet from Richmond, until, after a number of days, there came through our neighborhood a large number of Federal troops, said to be five thousand men, under one Colonel Browm. Then we heard that they were in pur- suit of President Davis. Kone of these soldiers passed through our village. A company of them came to its con- fines, and Mr. James Hunter, the intendant of our little town, walked out, having a sword by his side, and had a conference with their captain. What passed between them I never heard, but I believe they had got informa- tion that we had a body of troops in our village, and so turned off to the left, and moved towards Anderson Courthouse, whither the main body had gone. These said troops of ours were a small body of very old men, and some fifty lads, one of them my son John, about fifteen years old, armed with some small and very inferior shot- guns. They had been patrolling around Pendleton for sometime, searching for deserters, and known as "Home Guards," under the command of Captain Jones. How they happened to miss the Federals, when passing around Pendleton, I cannot tell, but a day or two after this, a portion of them had got wind of some soldiers being at Mr. Elias Earle's, on the Anderson road, four miles from the city. Duff Greene Calhoun, a young fellow of about eighteen, Avas leading these boys at the time, and, like boys, they took after the Yankees. Happily for these young j)atriots, the Yankees heard them coming, or, per- REMIJN^ISCENCES OF THE WAR. 341 haps, saw them tearing down the big road a mile off, and, fearing to encounter these invincibles, they fled inconti- nently, and our chaps pursued them for a mile. After two or three days, there came to my brother Robert's house, one mile from mine, a battalion of these soldiers, commanded by a major, seeking to find the treasure, which our President and Cabinet had left there. This story had, no doubt, been told them by some persons in Anderson, but there was no truth in it, as I have inti- mated already. But the major demanded the treasure, and threatened to hang my brother if it was not forth- coming. The officer even insisted upon telling him just where the money was hidden. There was a place, under the open basement of his house, always covered with planks, and some negroes in Anderson, who knew my brother's house, must have told the major that Jeff. Davis' gold was under those boards. My brother had the boards lifted, and a hole dug in the ground deep enough to satisfy the major that he had been misinformed, and was not to secure the coveted prize of the Confederacy's gold and silver. He did, however, find and take away with him a very magnificent military saddle, which was in one of the upper rooms of the house. This saddle had been sent from England, by Mr. Prioleau, for General Beauregard, and had been committed to my brother's care until he could find an opportunity to forward it to the General. While their commanding officer had been making this search, some of his men had made the ladies of the family give up their watches. The major, being informed of this, was considerate enough to have them restored ; but no sooner had he and his command moved off, than those men slipped back, and once more took possession of their booty. While this body of soldiers were at Rivoli, my brother's place, seven or eight of them came over to Bos- cobel, where I lived. I was lame at the time, and obliged to use a crutch. When they came up, I was out at some distance from the house, but they saw me, and one came over to me. He said, "Are you the owner of this place ?" I said, "Yes, are you Yankees ?" He said, "Yes, we are. 342 MY LIFE AND TIMES. Where are your horses ?" I told him 1 had sent them awav. "You sent them away, did you f said he. "Yes," said I, "I sent them away, that you might not get hold of them." "Well," he said, "you come up to the house, and we'll take care of you." We went up to the house together, where there were two or three more men, and my escort said to them, "He has sent away his horses, so that we might not find them." Just as he was speaking, I saw that some of his comrades had gone into the house. So I immediately turned from the men who were talking to me and went in. One of the party, who had first gone into the house, demanded my watch. I gave it to him, but said, "Does your government send you all through this country just to rob private citizens ?" Said he, "Do you suppose I would go riding all about here and not take anything home to my family ?" I was quite tired with my little walk, so I said to him, "Sit down, I want to talk to you." "No," said he, "I haven't got time," and he started up stairs. The fact was, he did not enjoy my fin- gering his conscience. Several ladies of my family were near, and he said to them, "Don't be afraid, ladies, we've seen ladies before. We only want to get pistols and gold watches." But they took whatever jewelry and articles of value they found. I followed this man about as well as 1 could with my crutch, and pretty soon found myself walking with him through one side of my wide piazza, and do\vn the back steps, where his horse was standing hitched. The man started to mount. As he did so, my back was turned towards him, and I heard his gun go off. Startled at the sound, I turned to look, and saw the man I had been talking to falling head foremost from his sad- dle, with the blood pouring in a stream from a wound in his throat. The sound of his gun made several of the others rush to the scene, and two of them raised their guns, and were about to shoot. My daughter, Mrs. Mullally, was in the piazza, the only witness to what had happened. She cried out to them, "Tie shot himself." I had not had one particle of fear of them from the beginning, and I took command, calling out, "Don't you see this man is bleeding to death ? Come here, some of you, and lift him up." Three of them REMINISCENCES OF THE WAK. 343 obeyed. As soon as they raised liim, it was plainly to be seen that, as he mounted his horse, his gun was discharged, the bullet entering his throat, and coming out at the top of his head. Instantly, they dropped his head, and all three began promptly to empty his numerous pockets, which were full of plunder. I was standing at his head, and they were busy at my feet. All kinds of things came out of those pockets. I clapped my hands over their heads, and said, ''The hand of God is on you, men. Give me back my watch." They seemed to be impressed, and looked from one to the other to see who had taken the watch. It was quietly given back to me. My daughter cried out, "Father, they've got my watch, too !" I clapped my hands again over their heads, and said, "Give back that lady her watch." It, too, was surrendered, and they departed, taking with them their comrade's horse, and all his other belongings, but showing no feeling or concern for him. The man was still living, though unconscious. I told them, as they left, that I would bury him when dead, and this seemed to convert me into a friend. Then they paused and told me the dying man was from Hills- dale, Mich., that his name was Alanson Chapman, and that he had a brother out on the road with the rest of the battalion, who could now be seen not very far off. As my visitors were riding off through the gate, two young colts in the yard seemed disposed to follow their horses. I called after the men, telling them not to let those colts out, though I thought it more than likely they would shoot the colts and ride off. But they quietly drove them back, and also shut the gate. Two or three weeks after this, the alarm was given at my house that four Yankees were coming up the avenue. I left the breakfast table and went out to meet them. Two I recognized as of the previous party. One of the other two had dismounted, and was standing on the ground. Addressing him, I asked, "What do you want ?" He said, "We have come to see about that man who was hurt ! What did you do with him ?" A look into his eyes showed me that he was the brother of the dead man. I said to him, "Your brother died that night; would you like to see his srave ?" At that moment a servant came 344 MY LIFE AND TIMES. up with my buggy and a horse I had borrowed from my brother, mine having been found in their hiding phice in the woods, and carried off by some of their company. I got into the buggy, and we all rode down to a beautiful little pine thicket, which was used as a burial place by the negroes of my plantation. I must say, first, that when the raider died, my old negro man Charles, the manager of my affairs, seemed to foresee, as I did not, that we should have this second visit. I had told him to prepare a decent coffin and grave, and to gather all the people together in the afternoon, that I might go with them down to the grave for religious ser- vices— all of which we did. But the old man had also made a nice pine head-board and foot-mark ; brought them to me, and asked me to put the dead man's name on the head-board. I made objections, but he prevailed, and I carved and inked — ALANSON CHAPMAN, Hillsdale, Michigan, Died May 5th, 1865. So we had marked the grave. When the brother looked at the inscription, I saw the water come into his eyes, and turning to me, he said, ''Sir, you have done all you could for my poor brother," and then expressed his hearty thanks. 1 told him I could do no less for any man Avho died at my door. He then informed me that our Presi- dent had been captured by other pursuers, and said that he would come back, after awhile, and take away his brother's body. As we all came back together, the thought would come into my mind that my brother was certainly going to lose his horse ; but not so. They left me with bows, and went straight to Colonel Sloan's stable, where they found no horses. They next went to old Mrs. ISTorth's place; met her carriage coming right out of her gate, and, taking her horses, left the carriage right in the gate- way, and started back to their camp, which was on the other side of the river. Immediately after their departure, I gladly took the EEMIXISCEXCES OF THE WAR, 345 horse and buggy, and, with my wife, whose nerves had been a good deal shaken, went for a good long drive to make some pastoral visits, which occupied me the greater part of the day. Returning from my circuit of visitations in the afternoon, what should I behold but the four sol- diers, now convicted thieves and prisoners. Old Captain John Maxwell they had threatened to murder the day before, but he had leaped on his blooded mare, old man as he was, clearing the fence, where she stood ready sad- dled, and escaped. On that occasion, there were other soldiers with them, and a major in command. This major, pursuing old Captain John and his blooded mare, which he must have coveted much, drew his pistol and fired, but at that moment, his own horse, throwing up its head, received the shot from his rider's pistol and fell. 'Next day. Captain John, Major Ben Sloan, his nephew, and another nephew, met these four men, captured them, sent back Mrs. jSTorth's horses, and brought the prisoners, and delivered them to the citizens of Pendleton. Some young counsellors would have dealt with them in a very summary way. Older heads, however, prevailed. The pris- oners were sent back that night, under guard of three armed men, to be delivered up to their general as horse thieves. On the return of these guards, they said their prisoners had knelt and begged for their lives in every dark place on the road, where the moonliglit did not reach, and that they had at last set them loose before they reached the camp. It was feared they had otherwise dis- posed of them, but my man certainly reached his home in safety, for I got a letter from his old father, thanking me, and saying he would come for his son's body very soon. I advised him that it would not be healthy for him to visit us just then. Six months after this a squad of soldiers was sent from Anderson for the remains of the dead raider. In September, 1865, Dr. Howe, Dr. Woodrow, and my- self reopened the Seminary, Dr. Thornwell's chair being vacant through his lamented death in 1863. Previously to going down, I had announced to my slaves that they were all free. The coming of emancipa- tion had been talked of all through the summer, and they 346 MY LIFE AND TIMES. had made inquiries about it of myself, and I had told them that, whenever it was determined, I should inform them of it. It was, perhaps, in August that the action of the State of South Carolina had settled the question, and I told them all that I could no longer employ them, and that they must find homes for themselves. They were about thirty in number. One of them, a man named Mor- ris, had a wife and a number of children, several of them well grown boys. lie alone of the whole number ob- jected very much to the terms of their emancipation, having this large family to support. In general, they received the announcement with indifference. To Morris it seemed that the government had treated him very badly, in setting him free without '"giving him a start," as he ex- pressed it. But he was a sober, faithful and industrious man, and his wife an excellent cook, and they soon found employment for themselves and their older lioys, so that they could live on their wages. The whole company very soon scattered, and I lost sight of them all. My head man w^as Charles, surnamed Morgan. As I shall hereafter show, he was a character. He had a wife and one son, and this' son had a wife and two daughters eight and ten years old. This son, named Alfred, I have previously mentioned as a remarkably intelligent and faithful negro. Hearing that wages were high at Mem- phis, Tenn., he counselled Avith me about moving there, and then did move with his wife and children. His old mother chose to go with her son, leaving her husband behind. It turned out, I fear, an unfortunate move, for a very few years after this a dreadful season of yellow fever visited Memphis, and thousands of negroes, as well as white people, fell victims. As I never heard of Alfred after this event, I am apprehensive that they all perished under this scourge. "When, in 1847, it became settled that the abolitionists of iSTew England would not allow me to return to my for- eign missionary work, and that I was to remain in my native city, and preach the gospel to the negroes, I became at once a householder and a slaveholder, an advisable step as regarded both the white people and the black. When, in 1852, I moved to Pendleton, and bcoan the life of a KE:\rI^fISCENCEs or the war. 347 farmer for the saving- of my eyesight, I purchased some slaves to work the land. Charles Morgan and his family were the first whom I bought. Xaturally, having just come from the work of a missionary to the negroes in Charleston, I felt much interest in the religious condition of these people. Accordingly, I used earnest eiforts to induce them to attend my family prayers every evening, and I also told them they must go to church in the village on Sunday. This I considered to be my duty as a Chris- tian master. After a Sunday or two, Charles came to me and said, '']\Easter, I can obey orders, but I don't want you to tell me that I must go to church." And he went on to say that he did not believe in religion ; he had seen the time, he said, when he had often run miles to hear a certain preacher, and this man was afterwards found out in his wickedness. He further said that if he only was obedient to his earthly master, he had nothing else to be afraid of. I saw at once that I was dealing with a man who had a head on his shoulders Avith brains in it, but having also a heart in him full of unbelief. I said to him at once that he had mistaken me, and that he might be sure that I did not mean to take a stick to force him to pray, or to drive him to church with. Of course, no com- pulsory methods can be employed in bringing religion to negroes, or to any other men. This reminds me of something that occurred at Smyrna, Asia Minor. I was intimately acquainted with a converted Jew, John Cohen by name. His wife was a Greek, who had been educated in Ireland. Talking with my friend about his wife, I inquired if she was a praying woman. John knew English pretty well, but did not always remember the force of some of our idioms. His answer was, "Oh ! yes, my wife is a praying woman ; I make her pray." I had many talks with Charles subsequently. He was greatly attached to me personallv, and I considered him to be a faithful servant, and so he came to be entrusted with all my plantation matters, and through him I gave all my orders to the rest. Once in awhile, they would ac- cuse him to me, and one gentleman in the village, that was smart enough himself in a trade, with whom Charles 348 MY LIFE A^'D TIMES. had dealings on my account, Avas known to have said, "Why, the old rascal; he cheats for his master." I tried to instruct him, and all my people, as to their duty to God and their own souls, and, I hope, not without some effect. But I have heard from that old negro as many and as astute objections to the revealed word as any infidel philosopher ever produced ; and it is my firm belief that every missionary to the darkest heathen people will sometimes meet this experience. These objections, whether in Christian or pagan lands, probably never orig- inate in the human heart. They are suggestions of the devil. I cannot claim that I fully performed my religious duty to my slaves, but I tried to do it. I was constantly away on Sundays, preaching myself. My wife continu- ally assembled both children and grown people on Sunday afternoons in our wide piazzas, reading and explaining the Scriptures to them, and teaching them to commit to memory verses of the Bible, and many of our best hymns, and to sing them to such tunes as best suited their musical taste. Moreover, my brothers and I employed a faithful, earnest minister to preach to them at set times every week, and my children taught all of them to read who were disposed to learn. When Charles's whole family moved away to ^leniphis, he was not willing to go with them, nor yet dared to re- main in Pendleton. He told me once that he had made many enemies to himself on my account. It was cer- tainly true that he was not popular with his own race. He used to say that he could always get along very well with white people, but not, he would add, "with the col- ored popularity." So he wanted me to let him go with me to Columbia. That city Avas in ruins then, and for a good Avhile afterwards. For some fifteen miles below that place, the railroad had been entirely destroyed, and it was a good while before it could be rebuilt, so there was much hauling of goods from that place up to town. I agreed, therefore, with Charles to let him have my four mules, and a big wagon, that he might go down, do some of this hauling, and make something for himself and me too. When that business came to an end, he found other work KEMIXTSCEXCES OF THE WAR. 349 in Columl")ia, but he had trouble with his own color, whom he accused of robbing him of all that he made. I was frequently called a war for days together on seminary bus- iness, and, meanwhile, my family were still remaining in Pendleton. On one of these occasions, Charles fell sick and died. I was afterwards told by my cousin, the Rev. Dr. Boggs, who visited him in his sickness, that the ne- groes, amongst whom he died, had not left clothes enough to give the poor old man a decent burial. And this cousin said that many times during his last sickness he called for his old master. The emancipation of my negroes was a pecuniary loss to me of some twenty-five thousand dollars. But it was, at the same time, my deliverance from a very serious and weighty responsibility, and I have never once regretted the emancipation. Xor, though I frequently made in- quiries of men on this subject, did I ever find one who said he was sorry that it had taken place. CHAPTER XI. Providential Dealings — Full Account or Revision. (Editorial Note.) For some reason the work of preparing the eleventh chapter of ]\Iy Life and Times was left by the venerable author to be the last of his work, but before anything had been done npon it, he was called away. It was his design, as we understand it, that this chapter should contain a full account of that important work undertaken by the Southern Presbyterian Church in the very beginning of its history, and prosecuted through a series of years until completed in the adoption of the BooJc of Church Order, embracing the "Form of Govern- ment" and the "Rules of Discipline." This work was, in one sense, a revision of the old Form of Government ; but it embodies certain distinctive principles, and the history of the process by which these came to be embodied in the organic law of the church, is one of intense interest. Xo one was better qualified to give the history of this work than Dr. Adger. He was himself an active participant in the labor involved, and brought to that labor a pro- found conviction of the importance of the principles which entered into it, and great earnestness of purpose in reviewing their embodiment in our organic law. It is greatly to be regretted that the story of this great work, which did not reach its completion until eighteen years after its beginning, could not have been a part of this vol- ume. Xo one is now left to us who was so closely iden- tified with it, and who so thoroughly understood it in all its phases, or who could so well have recorded it as a part of the history of our church. CHAPTER XII.— Part 1. The Coxtkoversies of My Times. 1801-1861. THE controversies of the nineteenth century are a con- tinuation of those of the eighteenth and preceding centuries, followed bv some peculiar to itself. 1. The controversy with sceptical criticism, which would overthrow the inspiration of the sacred writings by affirming inspiration of the sacred ivriters, only, however, as all men of genius are inspired ; which would make human reason the a priori judge of divine revelation; "which would undertake to eliminate all that is human out of the Christian Scriptures, and which reduces to myth or legend, or allegory, whatsoever in the divine records is unpalatable to its own taste." 2. "The controversy wdth ontology, in that transcen- dental and pantheistic form of it which undertakes to show by metaphysics how the universe must have been evolved out of the absolute ; how the infinite becomes real in the finite ; how one is made all, and all are made one ; how God alone exists, and all things in the universe are but his phenomena." 3. The controversy with the physical sciences, as, in the hands of some of their devotees, they turn against the Christian Scriptures, and seek to destroy their credi- bility. Geography and astronomy furnish specimens of these centuries ago. In the nineteenth century, geology and evolution of new" species furnish other specimens. Such controversies as these form, in our day, the battle ground of the evidences of Christianity — a battle outside of, and against, the citadel itself. But besides these questions, there are various subjects of controversy amongst the professors of the Christian faith themselves. The church of Rome would like us all to believe that w^ithin herself all is peace and imity. But the contrary is very well kno^^^l to be true. Her controversy, however, 352 MY LIFE AND TIMES. with Protestants does not belong to the nineteenth century in any special sense. Leaving, therefore, the questions which divide Protes- tants and Roman Catholics, what divides the Protestants of Great Britain amongst themselves ? It is questions of dissent and of conformity with the Establishment. And what divides the Establishment itself ? It is questions still about the church, between the Anglicans, and what they call the Ultra-Protestants. Pass to the EiDisco- palians of this country, and they also are very much engaged in the discussion of church questions among themselves. Amongst Congregationalists, there is unquestionably a firmer and more earnest faith in their distinctive views of church polity. 'No "plan of union" between them and any body of Presbyterians would now be a possibility on their side any more than on the other. ISTevertheless, on various questions of theology proper, they are very much divided. With our Baptist brethren in the United States the in- crease of denominational zeal is exceedingly manifest. Some of them deny that Pedo-Baptist societies, or those that do not practise immersion, are any churches at all. The English Baptists are generally more liberal on these points. One important event, however, has occurred in the history of American Baptists, particularly those dwelling in the Southern States. They have been induced to accept the Westminster Confession of Faith for their own. On the part of Presbyterians, there is, we believe, a stronger and clearer development of the primitive doc- trine of the church memljership of infants, even when only one parent is a church member. There is also amongst Presbyterians an increasing sense of the essen- tially schismatic position, both of American Baptists and High Church Episcopalians — of the former for rending the body of Christ about baptism, of the latter for rend- ing it about ordination. Then, as to the Methodist Episcopal Church, there was amongst them a serious controversy, and even a division took place, on the point of the absence of any direct rep- resentation of the people in their conference. This, I be- THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 353 lieve, lias been healed : 1)ut there has risen a controversy respecting the heretical doctrine of immediate and perfect sanctification in this life. Leaving, again, these varions qnestions agitating the different evangelical churches, I refer to a more general controversy, the millenarian, -which vet is clearly a ques- tion of ecciesiology, that has been, and still is, widespread, both in Europe and this country. Another question, which has been very widely and bitterly discussed in this century, and which, in its most important bearings, is a question of ecciesiology, is that of slavery. For never did they touch bottom in that dis- cussion, until they inquired whether slaveholding is sin- ful, and must be made a matter of church discipline. Wherever these two simple questions were decided in the negative, the contention maintained by the slaveholder was won; the fight immediately became a conflict, not with him, but Christianity and the Bible, and the struggle was transferred from the field of ecciesiology to that of the evidences. The same is true of the controversy of total abstinence, and some others like it. The settlement of this question upon scripture principles always determines the true limits of church power, as well as defines the true nature of the Christian virtue of temperance. Thus it would seem to be true, to a considerable extent, that the controversies of this nineteenth century have been questions about the church, her nature, her mission, her functions, her powers, her ofiicers, her members. The questions have not been about points of abstract princi- ple, nor doctrines of systematic divinity, but points of church order, church work, church discipline. !N^ow, 1 do not propose, in this twelfth chapter of My Life and Times, to discuss any of these questions to which I have referred. What I attempt is certain controversies confined to the American Presbyterian church during this nineteenth century. I commence with The Old axd iSTew School Coxteoversy. This had its beginning at the commencement of this century, and culminated in 1837 and 1838. The leader of 354 MY LIFE A^'D TIMES. this eulniinatioii was Robert J. Breckinridge, who was or- dained to the ministry in 1832. The Princeton professors did not take a leading part, bnt they Avere all on the right side. Theological professors do not generally take the lead in such controversies ; they feel unwilling to prejudice the interests of their institution. It is just so with presi- dents of colleges and orphanages, and with the secretaries of Assembly boards or executive committees. They are all afraid to take any decided part in questions which divide the church. Each has something of his own which he is very liable to regard more than the interests of the whole church. Accordingly, when the Assembly w^as asked to establish a theological seminary at Danville, Ky., and some opposition to the proposition was made by the friends of Princeton, we hear Dr. Breckinridge saying in true Kentucky style, ''Yon have Princeton, but we want a thing of our own ; if you w^on't let us have a thing of our own, we will come here and take your thing away from you, and carry it out to Kentucky." The controversy in question was the fruit of a com- promise between Congregational independency and Pres- byterianism. The Plan of Union, entered into in 1801, allowed churches in the new settlements, chiefly of the Xorthwest, w^hich were generally composed of both ele- ments, to elect pastors from either denomination, con- ducting their discipline according to either Congrega- tional or Presbyterian principles, as the majority of their members might determine. Where the majority were Presbyterians, elders might rule ; if the majority of members were Congregationalists, then committeemen might be appointed in their stead ; and, when appeals had to come before a presbytery these committeemen were allowed all the rights and functions of ruling elders. And yet none of these committeemen had ever been required to subscribe any symbols of faith. Of course, it is easy to see that the result must be a hybrid system, both as to doctrine and church order. It has been well said ''that churches, presbyteries and synods were born of it, all which, like Jacob's cattle, were ring-streaked, speckled, and grizzled," the product was Presbyterianism and Con- gregationalism, but especially the latter. The Plan of THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 355 Union was paramonnt to the Constitution of the Presby- terian Chnrch. From the very natnre of things, the Laxer system sniDerseded the stricter. Then also, as a matter of course, laxity of doctrine accompanied indifference to or- der. Chnrch government and chnrch discipline are the necessary bnhvarks of chnrch doctrine, and it is the Lord himself who has thns hedged ronnd for their protection the truths w^hich he has revealed. It was not strange, therefore, that the Plan of Union freely tolerated errors in doctrine. The dangerous theological speculations which, at this period, overran Xew England, were carried by the Congregational missionaries into the l^orthw^est, and very soon the most fatal departures from gospel truth spread all over the churches planted there. I cannot particular- ize, but must simply affirm that the very foundations of the Westminster standards of doctrine were thus over- turned. But for a fuller and very trustworthy account of all these matters the reader may consult Dr. Samuel J. Baird's History of the New School, or the fourteenth chapter of Dr. Palmer's admirable volume, Thorn well's Life and Letters. Presbyterians believe that Jesus Christ has a kingdom in this world, which is his church, whose constitution and laws he has distinctly revealed in the word. This church is his agency for the gathering and edifying of his people, and for the propagation of the faith throughout the world. It has always been understood by real Presb'\i:erians that the church herself is to do the work for which she was in- stituted, instead of employing voluntary societies to act in her stead. And from their earliest emigration to this country, they have, so far as able, always endeavored* to act out this belief. On the other hand. Independency, from the incom- pleteness of its organization, is necessarily compelled to work through other agencies not under her direct author- ity. Hence there originated amongst the individual and separated Christian congregations of Xew England three great voluntary societies, one to do the church's work of education, a second her work of home missions, and a third the work of propagatine; her faith abroad. They were Xew England societies, but they chose to call them- 356 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. selves the American Education Society, the American Home Mission Society, and the American Board of Com- missioners for Foreign Missions, popuhirlv kno\ni as the A. B. C. F. M. I would not ascribe to ambition the prefix of American by these societies to their o"^^^l proper names. The Pil- grim Fathers were on these shores long before the Scotch- Irish Presbyterians came in, and were gro^vn rich and strong while these later pilgrims and strangers were still poor and weak. It was quite natural for jSTew England to consider herself the whole country, and, accordingly, to claim that great name for herself. The x\merican Edu- cation Society, founded in Boston in 1815, deserved the respect of all good men, and very soon acquired large re- ceipts for its high purpose of educating young men for the gospel ministry. Many were very glad to buy hon- orary membership on its rolls at a high price in money. It had branch societies distributed all over the land, and it aspired to the educating of ministers for the w^hole country. The Presbyterians were not able, for a long time, to compete with this society. But in 1818 they or- ganized a Presbyterian Education Society in Philadel- phia, "which should be under the inspection of the Gen- eral Assembly, and a faithful representative of the whole denomination." "But the foreign influences, which had been imported into the body, set themselves at once to counteract the policy thus indicated. A rival organiza- tion was instantly created, imder a similar name, which refused to acknowledge Assembly control, and soon went over bodily to the American Education Society, and be- came its active instrument in promoting its ascendancy within the entire limits of the Presbyterian Church. Meanwhile, the church board languished for years, by reason of this opposition, together with its own restricted powers and the general inefficiency in its management, until 1831, when it was reorganized under the charge of the Rev. Dr. John Breckinridge as its secretary. Then at once it sprang into vigor, and held its own against all rivalry, until the hour of complete deliverance from all this thraldom was chimed in 1837." ^ * Dr. Baird's History, pp. 28.3-2!»2. and Tliornwcirs Life and Letters, p. 200., THE COXTEOVEKSIES OF MY TIME8. 357 As to the A. B. C. F. M., it should be stated that at its first organization, in 1810, Boston and its surroundings, with other Xew Enghand towns on the Atlantic coast, must have far excelled any other portion of this coast as to in- tercourse with foreign nations. ]^ew York itself, at that time, had very small pretentions. The hardy sons of Xew England were, in multitudes of cases, born seamen. They not only carried on the whale fishery in the South Seas, but the commerce of those States was by them extended far and wide, and their ships visited various foreign na- tions. Meantime, the Scotch-Irish Presbyterian emigra- tion found its way chiefly inland to Pennsylvania and Virginia, and thence westward and southward. They were not maritime people. Accordingly, the dwellers on the jSTew England coast had foreign nations much more in their eye and in their thoughts than our agricultural forefathers. It was natural, therefore, that 'New Eng- land Christians should precede them in the foreign mis- sionary work. It should also be stated that the A. B. C. E. M. had a remarkable birth. Eour young students of divinity, men of broad intelligence and lofty aspirations, meeting to- gether often for conference and prayer about the kingdom of Christ behind a certain hay-stack in some j^ew Eng- land field, first conceived the idea of becoming mission- aries to the heathen. They it was who stirred up their fathers in the jSTew England ministry to form the A. B. C. E. M. It should be stated, further, that not very long after the first organization of this ^ew England board, its cor- porate membership is found to include a number of prom- inent Presbyterian ministers in jSTew York City and else- where. Dr. Samuel Miller, the Princeton professor of high Presbyterian reputation, I recall to mind, as being one of these, and he continued such until about 1832 or 1833. But in the early history of American Presbyterianism the church's duty of doing, in her organic form, this work of the foreign propagation of the faith, as well as train- ing her own ministry, had been clearly recognized. As early as 1751, a collection was ordered to be taken each 358 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. year in every church, to send the gospel to the heathen, and upon this fund David Brainard was sustained among the Indians until his death, in 1781. In 1802, the Synod of Pittsburgh resolved itself into a foreign mission so- ciety, with a regular constitution and officers. In the same year, the Synod of the Carolinas sent two mission- aries to the Xatchez Indians, and one to the Catawbas, conducting the work through a commission regularly ap- pointed. At the same period, 1802, the Assembly ap- pointed a standing committee of foreign missions. Mean- while, various local foreign mission societies had sprung up, all subject to the church. In 1817, the subject of for- eign missions came again before the Assembly, the result of which was the organization of the "United Foreign Mission Society," composed of Presbyterian, Eeformed Dutch, and Associate Reformed Churches, receiving the sanction of the ecclesiastical bodies to which they be- longed. For eight years it prosecuted its work with vigor, gradually absorbing all the local societies. How^ever, in 1824, the Synod of Pittsburgh transferred their missions to its care, supposing it would continue always a Presby- terian body. Yet, at the very moment of this transfer, negotiations were in progress with the A. B. C. F. M., which soon absorbed the whole. There remained, there- fore, to the Presbyterian Church no Indian missions at all, because those of the Synod of the Carolinas, which date back to 1802, had already, in 1818, been transferred to the American Board. But soon the Western Foreign Mission Society was revived in the Synod of Pittsburgh. It presented itself to the Assembly of 1832 for recognition, having its first missionaries chosen, and their field to be Western Africa. Three years afterwards, that is, in 1835, it had twenty missionaries under its care, laboring in western Africa, northern India, and among several Indian tribes at home. Accordingly, the Assembly now began negotiations with the Synod of Pittsburgh for a transfer of all these to it- self. But the Assembly of 1836, under imported foreign influences, receded from this proposal. Then came the glorious period of 1837 and 1838, and the Revolution, which forever committed our church to carrying on directlv its own foreio-n mission work. THE CON^TROVEESIES OF MY TIMES. 359 But the great battle between the two uncongenial par- ties united together in 1801, resulted from their work on the same field of home missions. The Presbyterians made a beginning on that field as early as 1802, but do^m to 1816, tiie date of the first establishment of their Board of Domestic Missions, their efforts were crippled, as Dr. Palmer expresses it, through the opposition engendered by what should rightly be called the ''Plan of Conten- tion," rather than the "Plan of Union." There soon grew up out of this opposition what was called the United Domestic Missionary Society. This, in 1826, resolved it- self into the American Home Mission Society, which was planned in a meeting of delegates from the Xew England churches, held in Boston early in the same year. Dr. Ab- salom Peters was at the head of this latter institution, and he made it his constant effort to absorb the Presbyterian Board. He first contrived to gain over to his views Dr. Ezra Stiles Ely, the secretary of the Assembly Board at Philadelphia, and these two soon labored together for the amalgamation of the Presbyterian Boards and the Amer- ican Home Mission Society. This project failing. Dr. Absalom Peters next endeavored to plant a branch of his society in the West, at Cincinnati, hoping the Assembly would carry on its work in the West through this branch as a common agency. His design was, says Dr. Palmer, either to drive the Presbyterian Church out of the West as a field of operations, or so to control her movements that they should be wholly subordinate to the interests of Congregationalism. At length, it was found necessary, for the protection of Presbyterianism, that a convention of representatives from all the Western Synods should be held at Cincinnati in ^N'ovember of 1831. Here the question at issue between Congregationalism and the Presbyterian Church was definitely settled in resolutions, to the entire and final defeat of all the schemes of Dr. Absalom Peters and the American Home Mission Society. The convention resolved that "it is inexpedient to propose any change in the General Assembly's mode of conducting domestic missions, fully approving of that now in such successful operation ; and that the purity, peace, and prosperity of the Presbyterian Church materially de- 300 MY LIFE AND TIMES. pended on the active and efficient aid -which the sessions and presbyteries under its care may afford to the As- sembly's board. Dr. Palmer says, ''With the American Education Society to train a ministry in lax theology, and with the American Home Mission Society to distribute and support them in their field of labor, it was simply a question of time to trample the Confession of Faith in the dust, to lay prostrate the whole constitution and or- der of our church, and to render the entire Presbyterian Church a bound vassal under iSTew England theology and jSTew England control. Such were the vexatious contentions, both as to doctrine and j)olity, with which the so-called Plan of Union had tormented the Presbyterian Church for more than thirty years.* There ensue now the famous trials of the Rev. Albert Barnes for heresy. He had published a sermon in 1828 on "^'The Way of Salvation." The case went up from the presbytery, through the synod, to the i\.ssembly of 1831, where the sermon of Mr. Barnes was only cen- sured for unguarded and objectionable passages. In 1835 he was again tried on the charges of heresy, brought by Dr. George Junkin, based on his recently published commentary on Romans. The case reached the Assem- bly of 1836, by which Mr. Barnes was sustained. An- other flagrant outrage by that Assembly was the creation of what was appropriately designated an ''Elective Af- finity Presbytery" in the Synod -of Philadelphia, and against its remonstrances. This consisted of a company of ministers and churches, pointed out by name, thrown together because of their doctrinal s^mipathies and irre- spective of geographical boundaries. Then, to place this body beyond the reach of synodical action, it was erected, with two others of like sentiment, into the Synod of Dela- ware. Here was not only an asylum provided for men unsound in the faith, but presbyteries were created to license candidates who would everj'^vhere else be rejected. In the year 1833 came to the Assembly a memorial from Ohio, known as the Western Memorial, testifying * It had also introduced into her ministry many men untrue both to her doctrine and order. THE COXTEOVEESIES OF MY TIMES. 361 against nine specified doctrinal errors, and urging the repeal of the Plan of Union and all special arrangements with the Congregational churches. During the session of the Assembly of 1834, the famous "Act and Testimony" was drawn up by the pen of Kev. Dr. K. J. Breckinridge. This paper closed with a recommendation for a conven- tion, to be held next year. This convention prepared a memorial to the Assembly of 1835, which received from it a measure of consideration, and raised hopes of ulti- mate reform excited only to be blasted ; for the next As- sembly, that of 1836, was more radical than any that had preceded. This was the Assembly that cleared Mr. Barnes of heresy. But, in 1837, for the first time in sev- eral consecutive years, the orthodox party found itself in a small majority. The business of reform was brought before this body in an able "Testimony and Memorial" from the pen of Dr. Breckinridge, making sixteen speci- fications as to false doctrine (which the reader may find in Pahners Life of Thornwell, p. 195), and proposing the immediate abrogation of the Plan of Union, the discoun- tenancing of the American Education and Home Mission- ary Societies, and other measures of like character. It was then carried that, by this abrogation, the four Synods of Utica, Geneva, Genessee, and Western Reserve, which were founded upon this platform, are, and are hereby, de- clared to be, no longer a part of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. This action has been assailed as uncoiistitutional. But the Plan of Union being established simply by legislative act, it could equally as well. Dr. Archibald Alexander maintained, be declared, by legislative act, null and void. Of course, the platform on which they stood, being taken away, the presbyteries and synods which stood upon it fell to the ground. "In the following year, 1838, commissioners from these exscinded synods presented themselves with their creden- tials. ISTo sooner had the opening prayer been offered than Dr. Patton arose, with certain resolutions in his hand." The moderator, Dr. William S. Plumer, pro- nounced him out of order, "since, till the roll was made out of those who had regular commissions, there was no house to hear him." Dr. Patton appealed to the house. 362 MY I.IFE AXD TIDIES. The moderator ro])li(Ml, "There is no h«inse to a])]teal to." Being defeated by the tact and firmness of tlie moderator, the only resource of these intrnders was to attempt their organization of an Assembly, by a loud call, from Mr. Cleaveland, in the body of the honse, upon Dr. jSTathan S. S. Beman to take the chair. This gentleman stepped into the aisle, "where, in the utmost confusion, a few questions and answers were spoken, and the whole party retired to organize in another building. "The disrup- tion," says Dr. Balmer (page 209), "was eifected. The Old and jSTew Schools were now distinctly apart, and those who stood by the Constitution of the Church, in a strict interj)retation of her symbols of doctrine and principles of government, rejoiced in a great deliverance." This disruption of the Presbyterian Church extended, more or less, through all its synods and all its presby- teries. It divided the Charleston Union Presbytery, which had ordained me to the foreign mission work, into two bodies — one the Charleston Union Presbytery, and the other the Charleston Presbytery. This latter corres- ponded with the foreign missionaries, which had been sent out, to know on which side they would stand. My sympathies and opinions had always been strongly on the Old School side, and I, therefore, requested to be enrolled with the Presbytery of Charleston. The Board Coxtroversy. Dr. Palmer well remarks that there was left over a "residuary bequest" — "a sort of remainder" — from the original controversy with which the church was rent in 1837-'38.* This bequest and remainder was the board controversy. One expression which he uses in relation to this very point is liable to be misunderstood. He says, "During the period, when the church was brought under a species of vassalage to Congregationalism, the great national societies, which usurped her functions, conducted their operations by the agency of boards. The church had become familiar with that mode of action," etc. jSTo one will deny the influence of Congregationalism upon * See Life and Letters, pp. 182-221. THE CONTROVEBSIES OF MY TIMES. 363 the Presbyterian Cliurcli, esijecially in tliose portions of it most contigiions to Xew England; nor that in the iN'orthwestern wilderness, where the American Education Society and the American Home Mission Society chiefly operated, there was brought about a vassalage of the Pres- byterian Church to Congregationalism. Of course, Dr. Palmer did not mean to apply his remark to our church in all its parts and portions. Xeither is he to be understood as meaning that our whole church had become familiar with that mode of action in the sense of becoming, in any degree, satisfied with it. The sturdv Scotch-Irish Presbv- terians of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, and the Carolinas, who constituted the bulk of our Presbyterian Church in those days, had been educated better by their fathers, and could not approve the mixing up of the church with voluntary associations. They tolerated the Plan of Union, but, from the first, they did not like it. and it was influence from such quarters that finally overthrew it. If "boards, exactly analagous" to the hybrid ones, were established, it was not the work of these real Presby- terians. From the beginning, Philadelphia had become the centre of the Presbyterian Church in this country. Philadelphia and contiguous parts of Pennsylvania and Xew Jersey, together with large portions of rural Xew York, had long felt the influence of their near neighbors, the Congregationalists. The new boards all centred in Philadelphia, and their leading members, as well as those of every Assembly, for some time, came largely from the districts I have named. The Assembly itself, from the beginning, with only five exceptions, met every year in Philadelphia, until, as Dr. Breckinridge expressed it, "we got it set on wheels in IS-ii," and it came thereby under other influences than those of "the mother city." It will hardly be maintained, therefore, that our church, as a whole, had l)ecome familiar with action through boards, in the sense of being fascinated with them, when it is considered that in less than two years after the abro- gation of the Plan of Union, there began a most de- termined opposition to the continuance of these methods. When Calvin undertakes to state the true doctrine of the church, he liegins, first, with her relation to God, and 3G4 MY LIFE AND TIMES. then her relation to us. "The church is a divine institu- tion, an external help to nourish the faith begotten in us. God has given her the gospel with pastors and teachers. He has invested them with authority. He has omitted nothing which might conduce to holv consent in the faith and to right order." Here is Jus Divinum Preshyterii. The church being the work of God's hand, let no man dare essav any change or improvement in its structure. It is incredible that God, who instituted the church, should tolerate any human alterations in it. If Christ is the Head and King, we must let him rule in his kingdom. As to the church's relation to us, Calvin says that scrip- ture makes her "our mother." Though poj^ery fatally, and prelacy too much, exaggerate this idea, yet Presbyte- rians make far too little of the church. As our mother, it is hers to nourish us when we are babes, and train us up to be adults in faith. I do not say that she does all this, but Calvin is certainly right in maintaining that such is our Father's design in instituting the churcli. She is to be a mother to us, and, as such, to be revered and obeyed by us in the Lord. The authority of church officers and church courts is not from the people, as the Congregation- alists imagine. It is put upon them by God. Of the power given of God to the church, Calvin makes three departments — the power diatactic or legislative, the power diacritic or judicial, and the power dogmatic or doctrinal. Xow, let it be observed that of legislative power very little indeed is conferred on the church. Jesus Christ stands alone as King in his kingdom. Her officers are not his councillors, but only his servants, ^ot a law can the church make, out of her own discretion, ad- ditionally to those he has given her. She is permitted to act only by divine command. For everything set up by her she must produce a "thus saith the Lord." In the whole sphere of religion, whatever is not commanded is forbidden. This is the ground of the great Protestant maxim, that the Bible is our only, and our sufficient, rule of faith and practice. ''The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set do\vn in scripture, or, by good and necessary consequence, may be THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 365 deduced from scripture, unto which nothing is, at any time, to be added, whether by new revehations of the Spirit or traditions of men." Our doctrine, our disci- pline, our worship, are all divine and revealed things, to which the church can add, from which she can take away, nothing. jSTo more discretion has the church in regulating those who compose her membership. They are the free sons of God, and she cannot bind their con- sciences. ISTeither contrary to the scriptures, nor yet in addition to the scriptures, can she impose any new duties not imj)osed on men by the word. On the other hand, she cannot make anything to be sinful which God himself has not, in his holy w^ord, forbidden. In fine, the church has no legislative power, except as to the mere circumstances of time and place, order and decency, which, from the nature of the case, scripture could not regulate, and which must needs be left, and have therefore been left, to hu- man discretion. Kespecting such circumstances as these the divine law is, let all things be done decently and in order. All the power which the church has about laws is declarative and ministerial. Her officers declare, not their own will, but the Lord's, and that only as he makes it known in the w^ord, which is open to all men, and which every man is entitled to judge of and interpret for himself. Such are the principles that were involved in the board controversy. Christ being sole Head and King of his church, having given to her all the officers she needs, hav- ing revealed to them in what way they were to carry on her work, having limited her obedience to those things which he has commanded, and what he has not com- manded being therefore forbidden, his church was to do his work herself, not remit it to any voluntary associa- tion. Still further, she w'as not to turn it over to any or- ganized body of one hundred men which she herself might appoint. She was to be herself the Lord's agent, and not invent new agencies through which she might act. Of course, the church herself could not directly execute her Lord's commands. She must have officers or agents, such as committees, to execute her work. The reader will easily perceive the fundamental character of the board question. 3 GO MY LIFE AXD TIMES. Under the Plan uf Union, or, more properly, of Con- tention, Avhicli lasted for thirty-six years — that is to say, from 1801-1837 — the Presbyterian Church had grown to be acenstomed to the idea of church action, not direct, but through appointed boards. When the church was lib- erated from the Plan of Union, she continued to act upon this same idea. Her boards of foreign and domestic missions, education, etc., were made to consist each of about one hundred men, usually the most prominent men in the church, resident all over her territory, from north to south and from east to west. It was not expected that these dignitaries would be able to leave their homes and their employments, from time to time — say, every month — and repair, at great expense of time and money, to Philadelphia, then the centre of the church and the seat of these boards. Their appointments were simply hon- orary— honorary to the individual men, and, because of their individual eminence, honorary to the cause it Avas expected their names should promote and advance. It was even allowed that these honors might, in a sense, be purchased with money. The giver of one hundred dol- lars might become, not, indeed, a voting member, but would still be acknowledged in honor of his gift as a mem- ber of the board. To have his name entered on the pub- lished list with those of so many great and eminent per- sons, would be considered, by many a man of money, an honor not dearly purchased at the price of one hundred dollars. Such being the arrangement made, of course very few of the voting members of the board ever at- tended its annual meetings. There was an executive com- mittee of each of these boards, its members residing either in the city of Philadelphia, or within easy reach of that city, and these i^ersons were the actual working members of each board. These executive committees pre- pared their annual reports to their respective boards. The boards, so far as they were ever present, would hear, consider, and accept these reports, and then they would present them as their own reports of whatever had l)een done, to the General Assembly. Manifestly, these boards were of no real or important good use. They simply stood between the church and the THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 367 Avork that was committed to lier hands. The executive committees were a real, and, indeed, indispensable, in- strument, through which the church could efficiently oper- ate, and was operating. But the boards were just so many encund^rances in the way of the church. It was in the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, meeting in the city of AugTista in 1840, a little niore than two years after the overthrow of the Plan of Union and its machinery, that Dr. Thornwell first publicly assailed this incongruous system of boards. He submitted a doc- ument carefully prepared beforehand. The majority re^ jected his paper, his views being sustained by only a very respectable minority. Forwarding this document to Dr. Breckinridge for publication in the Baltimore Literary and Religious 2Iagazine, he says, ^'I believe that the boards will eventually prove our masters, unless they are crushed in their infancy. They are founded upon a radical misconception of the true nature and extent of ecclesiastical power ; and they can only be defended by running into the principle, against which the Reformers protested, and for which the Oxford divines are now zeal- ously contending." What he means is that the inventors of the board system do not view the church as, strictly speaking, a divine institution, which man may not at- tempt to mend ; nor do they understand that the power of the church is limited entirely to those things which God has commanded her to do. He means to say that the Reformers held strictly to this limitation on the powers of the church. He means that the Oxford divines were zealously contending for the church's right to make laws, devise ceremonies, appoint saints' days, and do whatever seemed to her advisable. Previously to the synod's meeting, he had written, in August, 1840, to the Rev. John Douglas, "I am satisfied that there is a dangerous departure, in the present age of bustle, activity, and vain-glorious enterprise, from the simplicity of the institutions which Christ has established for the legitimate action of the church. He has appointed one set of instrumentalities, and ordained one kind of agency in his kingdom ; but we have made void his com- mandments, in order to establish our own inventions. I 368 MY -LIFE AND TIMES. believe that the entire system of voluntary societies and ecclesiastical boards for religious purposes, is fundamen- tally wrong. The church, as organized by her Head, is competent to do all that he requires of her. He has fur- nished her with the necessary apparatus of means, officers, and institutions, in sessions, presbyteries, elders, pastors, and evangelists. Let us take Presbyterianism, as we have it described in our Form of Government, and let us carry it out in its true spirit, and we shall have no use for the sore evil of incorporated boards, vested funds, and trav- elling agencies. If it is wrong to hold these principles, it was certainly wrong to lay down such a form for the gov- ernment of the church ; and if we do not intend to execute the form, let us cease requiring our ministers to assent to it. Such is a skeleton of my views." Dr. Thornwell's article in the Baltimore magazine was reviewed by Dr. Smyth, and a rejoinder appeared from Dr. Thornwell in the magazine. Writing again to Dr. Breckinridge, January 17, 1842, he says that evidentlj^ "the first principles of ecclesias- tical polity are not clearly understood among us. The fundamental fallacy ... is that the church, instead of being the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, is really one of his counsellors and his confidential agent. This rotten principle is the basis of the whole fabric of dis- cretionary power, and the multitude of inventions which have sprung from human prudence." This controversy, rising into public notice first in the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, occupied the atten- tion of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America until its very last Assembly, at Rochester, X. Y., in 1860. There it gave rise to a very great debate, and the x^orthern and Southern Presbyterian Churches spoke their last words to each other in each other's presence. Each had its representative. The advocates of boards were largely in the majority, and Avere led by the eminent, trusted, and beloved Charles Hodge, educator, in part, of many hundreds of Presbyterian ministers. His name is known and revered by all on this continent, and multi- tudes in Europe. The majority, which he led, stood on its own territoi-y, far up Xorth and East, in the State of New THE COXTKOVEESIES OF MY TIMES. 369 York. Dr. Ilocloe was surrounded b_v a multitude of friends and admirers, all lending him their support and encouragement for every word that he uttered. The mi- nority had for their representative and leader James Henley Thornwell. He had a few friends at his side, all, like him, far from home, in an unfamiliar region. To by far the greater part of those who heard him in that debate he was an almost unknown stranger, and they certainly were strangers to him, giving him no looks or smiles of encouragement. But before that debate closed, all those strangers had found out luho, and, in some degree, what this stranger was. The question, as proposed by the friends of the l)oard (Dr. Thornwell accepting the form in which they put it), was, Is it expedient to make any organic change in the organization of the Board of Domestic Missions ? Dr. Thornwell said, ''It is not very long since the friends of this system insisted that the difference between ns and them was nominal, mere hair-splitting, the differ- ence merely twixt tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.^ But it is now admitted that the difference is important, it is vital and essential, the things at stake are substance, and not shadow, the thing that was declared to be mere ab- straction begins to be viewed as something very danger- ous. Moderator, I accept that view of our differences which makes them real and important. I do not depre- cate this discussion. We all love the truth, and are equally concerned for the honor of Christ's church. We have no by-ends to subserve. I am no party man, but I am thoroughlv a Presbvterian. I wish to state the grounds upon which I shall cast my vote. The question before us is but an offshoot from another question. Our differences about boards spring from our differences as to the nature and constitution of the church. Some of us hold that God gave us our church government as truly as our doctrine, and that we have no more right to add to the one than to the other. They hold that, while the church may, of course, employ whatever agency is really necessary to do the work entrusted to her, for that is ini- * Tliis language liad been publicly used by Dr. Hodge. 370 MY LIFE AND TIME!^. ])lied in the very command which enjoins her duty, yet she has no right to create a new church court, or other body of whatever name, to stand in her place. ''Others, as wise and as good men as the first, believe that no definite form of church government is given, but God has left it to man to organize his church, just as civil government was ordained of God in general, but man is left to arrange the particular form as may, in his view, best suit particular circumstances. In like manner, these hold in respect to church government : God gave only general principles, and man is to work out of them the best system that he can. The first party hold that God gave us a church ; presbyteries and assemblies, presbyters and deacons — all the functionaries necessary to a com- plete organization of his kingdom upon earth. He has revealed an order as well as a faith. Our attitude, in the one case, is to hear and believe ; in the other, it is to hear and obey. ''One of the two parties represented here to-day, ac- cepts the motto, 'You may do all that the scriptures do not forbid ; ' the other, 'You can do only what the scrip- tures command.' This second party, whose main prin- ciple I just now stated, contends that man is not to be the counsellor of God, but is to accept the church as it comes from God, and do what he enjoins. They contend that we cannot ajDpoint a coordinate body to do the work which God appointed his church to do. They contend that the General Assembly, as representative of the church, is, and ought to be held to be, itself the board of missions. They contend for the great principles of Presbyterian Church order, as revealed in the Bible. The oneness of the church, its federative imity, is one of these principles, but another is the representative principle. Upon this principle it is that any of us are here, and upon this prin- ciple it is that all of us are alike here, elders as well as ministers, all upon the same footing, as representatives of the church. We are all here as ruling elders. It is in this capacity, as rulers in Christ's kingdom, that all the members of this court have committed to them for the church that work which they may not delegate to any other body. The church has a charter of faith and of THE COXTKOVEKSIES OF MY TIMES. 371 practice, and wherever she cannot plead the authority of God, she has no right to act. She has no opinion ; she has a faith. She has no contrivances ; she has a law. Her authority is all ministerial and declarative. She only de- clares the law of the Lord, and only exercises the powers he gives, and only executes the work he enjoins. 2^o other regulations are left for her to make and to enforce save those of circumstantial details ; and the power to make these is implicitly contained in the general commands given to her. It is also explicitly given in the precept to 'do all things decently and in order.' Whatever executive agency is requisite in order to do her appointed work she can, of course, employ ; but she may not go outside of this necessity, and transfer her work to another body to be performed by it. "Xow," said Dr. Thornwell, '"if this notion of church power be conceded; if we correctly apprehend the real nature of church courts as divine institutions, and if we duly conceive of the solemnity and responsibility of all their action, then we are prepared to see how all this bears upon the question of boards. What, then, is a board — one of our boards, a board of our Assembly, as distinguished from a simple committee ? "In the first place, it is an organism, and not an organ. It is a complete body. It is a complete whole. It has head, body, limbs, hands, tongue, and now they want to give it feet. It has a president for its head, with a body of many members ; it has an executive committee for its hands ; and now our brethren propose, by a travelling secretary, to give it feet to travel — to travel over the whole land. Xow wherein does this church body differ from a church court i Talk of this as a mere organ ! Talk of this as a mere hand ! It is a hand that has an arm of its own, and a head of its own to direct it. It is as completely a moral person as any court in the Presby- terian Church. In what, I ask, does it diifer from a synod or a presbytery ? You say the board is responsible to the General Assembly ; so is a synod. You say a breath can annihilate the board ; so it may a synod. In fact, we see the board standing side by side with the General Assem- bly itself, as fully officered, as complete in its organiza- 872 MY LIFE AND TI^rES. tion, and, so far as regards its component nicml)crs, more perpetual in its existence. ''In the second place, what is the relation to the Assem- bly of the boards, as thus completely organized? They are the vicars of the Assembly. God gave the church a work to do in her organized capacity; she refuses to do that work in that organized capacity, but appoints another organization to do it in its organized capacity. The boards are the representatives of the church in its organ- ized capacity. This is, in fact, admitted privately by our brethren, for they hold that when a board acts, the Assembly acts. They will tell you the boards do the work of the Assembly in the place of the Assembly ; and they quote the maxim, which we admit to be applicable here, Qui facit per alium facit per se. But, Moderator, who gave the courts of the church a right to act, in their organ- ized capacity, by vicars, or 'representatives' ? Congress has power to make certain laws ; can Congress delegate this power to another body ? "In the third place, let us look at the methods of action which have been adopted by these creations, and we shall see still more plainly that they are complete organizations, and also that they work evil, and not good. The practical ends of the boards have been two — to awaken interest and to increase funds. As to the first end, the idea was that there must be a body specially devoted to aAvakening the missionary spirit in the church. The missionary spirit was not to be the healthful action of the church's life, but something substituted for it, something worked up in the bosom of the church by special influences. But the other end to be gained was the increase of funds. This was sought to be attained by the sale of these distinctions. Sir, it has been my lot to have part in many earnest de- bates in the church courts, and I do not know that I was ever yet betrayed into saying an unkind word of any man in the church, or of any institution in the church I was called on to oppose. But, sir, every instinct of my na- ture, and every holy impulse implanted within me by the Spirit of God, rises up with indignation and horror against this principle that men may buy places of honor and trust in this free, glorious commonwealth of Jesus THE CONTROVEKSIES OF MY TIMES. O i 6 Christ. I do revolt against this paid membership, this entitling' of men for money to become consulting members of the church or of her boards — which they tell us are the same thing — this selling distinctions and honors in the church of Christ for filthy lucre, when nothing is plainer than that the love of Christ should form the only motive of all our contributions. Whatever shall be the result of this discussion. Moderator, were it in my power, I would at least expunge, and, utterly and forever, blot out this organic feature of our present system, as I hope God will wash out the sin and shame of it in the blood of his dear Son. And I predict that the time is not far off, when the church shall, with a whip of small cords, drive out all the buyers and sellers from our temple. "Such is the scheme of the boards as established in the Presbyterian Church. It is a complete system. It is a church by men, instead of a church by God. Moderator, I have confidence in the men who control our boards, and, whilst in their hands we may escape the more serious evils which we dread, in w^orse hands all the evils which we have pointed out would grow worse. The egg of the ser- pent is harmless, but it contains a serpent. The boards may be harmless now, but they contain a principle fraught with mischief in the day of trial. "My argimient is finished, but I must notice objections. First, our brethren say we must not have innovations. Sir, we only propose a return to Bible principles and Bible practice. Our doctrine is as old as the ISTew Testa- ment, our plan as old as the Acts of the Apostles. More- over, the Assembly has of late virtually decided that our principles are the true development of its life. At the Xashville Assembly some of the ablest friends of boards advocated a new one for church extension, but the idea of a simple committee, though feebly advocated,* prevailed. Thus the Assembly took one step towards what we pro- pose. "Secondly, it is urged, 'Let well enough alone.' Oh! sir, is it well enough ? What do brethren mean ? I am no * The "feeble advocacy," as Dr. Thoriiwell modestly put it, was his own. "Some of the ablest friends of boards" were Drs. Plumer and. Boardman. 374 ISIY LIFE AND TIMES. accuser. I do not blame the l)oarcls. They have clone what they could with this stilT and cumbrous organization. But have they done well enough ? Can any man say that this great church, in any department of its work, is do- ing well enough ? Oh ! sir, when I think of eight hundred perishing millions abroad, and of the moral wastes of our own country, when I look at the power of the gospel and the Master's blood to redeem and save, and then think how little progress has been made, I cannot say, 'Let well enough alone.' I must put it to my brethren, is it well enough ? I must urge this church to inquire if she be not neglecting some power God has given her. She is capa- ble of far higher and more glorious things, and I want her to put forth her own living hand directly to this work." Thus Dr. Thornwell ended with a thrilling appeal, such as few men can equal, that held the Asseml)ly and the thronged galleries in breathless attention, while he sum- moned the sacramental host of God's elect to rise and march, and take the world for Jesus, closing with amen and amen ! In reply, Dr. Hodge complimented the eloquence of Dr. Thornwell, but professed his own inability to see the distinction drawn between a board and an executive com- mittee. Dr. Thornwell thought the diiference radical. For himself, Dr. Hodge said, snapping the thumb and forefinger of his right hand together, I do not think it worth that. "We cannot receive, and our church has never held, the High Church doctrines aliout organiza- tion, for which the brethren contend. The Spirit of God, dwelling in the church and guiding her by his word and providence, must shape her efforts and her agencies, so that, under the dispensation of the Spirit, far more is left to the discretion of the church than under the old economy. But now we are called upon to believe that a certain form of church government and order, in all its details and with all its appliances for the evangelical work, is revealed in the word, and that we are as much bound to receive this forui as to receive the articles of faith, that order is as much a uiatter of revelation as faith. We cannot do it, and we Avill not do it. The burden was too heavv for our fathers, and wc cannot bear it." THE COXTEOVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 6 i iJ Continuing, Dr. Hodge described, at some length, the struggle it had cost the church to get her work of dissem- inating the gospel at home and abroad, out of the hands of the voluntary societies, so as to entrust it to a board of her own creation and control. "Thus, and from this quarter, did opposition to our boards first arise ; now it comes from an opposite quarter. Then the opposition came from Congregationalism. jSTow it comes, and I say it with great respect for my Brother Thornwell, from hyper- hyper-hyper High Church Presbvterianism. Then we were told that all power is from the people ; now, that all power is lodged in the clergy, that presbyters are all of one order, all pastors, all teachers, all rulers ; then it was the distribution of power ; now of centralization. "But let us now look at this new theory of church authority. I understand it to be : 1, That Christ has or- dained a system of church government, not in general principles, but in all its details, and that we have no more right to create a new office than a new doctrine, or a new commandment of the Decalogue, unless we can show a 'thus saith the Lord' for it. 2, That power inheres in the church, and cannot be delegated, any more than pray- ing or giving alms can be done by proxy. And, 3, That all power is joint, as opposed to several. These are the green withes by which it is proposed to bind the limbs of our church ; or rather, this is the Delilah, who is to cut the locks of our Samson, and send him, shorn of his strength, to be the sport of the Philistines. ISTow, sir, our church never did receive this yoke, and she will not receive it. We believe that all the attributes of the church l)elong to the Holy Ghost. He is to be her guide by his word and providence, and, under the general principles of the word, ministers, elders, and people are to do the work of the church, according to their best judgment. She has dis- cretion, sir, she cannot be bound. "In opposition to this theory, I have been taught by lips now silent in the grave, but vocal in the General As- sembly on high, and I will never forget it, nor cease to de- fend it while life and being last, that all the attriluites and prerogatives of power in the church arise from the in- dwelling of the Spirit, and where he dwells there is the 376 :my life akd times. cluireli, Avitli authority to do its o^ni Avork in the best way ; and, as he does not dwell in the clergy exclusively, therefore, the jDower is not confined to the clergy ; but the church may, in her discretion, adopt such modes or agencies to carry out the commands of Christ as she deems best. She must be free. She must breathe. The power of the church is where the Holy Ghost is ; but in exter- nals he has given her discretion. I glory, as much as does my Brother Thornwell, in the principles of Presbyterian- ism, but one of those principles, and a most important one, is freedom in that which the Bible leaves to the discretion of Christ's i3eople. We must not forget our great dis- tinctive principles : First, the parity of the clergy ; sec- ondly, the representative element, the right of the people to take part, by suffrage, in the government of the church, and, indeed, that originally the power is deposited with the people ; and, thirdly, the unity of the church, that all its members are parts of one great whole, and that all must suffer and labor and rejoice together. And these are not compatible with the new theory. But, above all, the theory is utterly unscriptural. Let any man open the jSTew Testament, and say if our Form of Government is there as our faith is there ! Xo, sir, this is making the scaffolding to hide the building; it is making the body the same in value as the soul. I cannot see how any man can say that all the details of our system are in the Bible. The Jewish system, in all its details, was not in the Old Testament. Their yoke w^as not so heavy as that which these brethren would bind on our necks; and it is pre- posterous to expect that so heavy a yoke can be received by those whom Christ has made free. This is too great a burden ; the church cannot receive it, and we will not receive it. Our Christian liberty is not thus to be put in trammels. The shackles are worse than Jewish that they would put on our feet, and then tell us to go over hill and dale, and preach the gospel to every creature. ]^o, I do not find their system in the Bible, but I find just the opposite. Where are our apostles and prophets ? Sup- pose, Moderator, that Paul, inspired by God as an apostle, sat in your seat ! What would he care for our Book of Discipline, or our Form of Government? Who would THE COXTROVEESIES OF MY TIMES. 3YY want him to care for them ? He would ordain whom he pleased, depose whom he pleased, deliver to Satan whom he pleased. He would decide everything by the authority that he exercised as Christ's plenipotentiary. He would wait for no decisions of Assemblies. "But this burden to the conscience — to it I will not sub- mit. I will not be bound to a form of organism as I am to the faith of the gospel. I will not submit my con- science to the inferences, even of Dr. Thornwell. And yet this whole theory, which we are called upon to receive as of faith, is a matter of inference. I will not submit to anything as binding on my conscience that does not come from God's own lips. The Presbyterian Church will never submit as long as there is one drop of blood of her fathers in the veins of her children, to this superlatively High-Church order. Will you have deaconesses because the apostles had them ? "And, finally, this theory is suicidal. How are you to have schools and colleges and theological seminaries if you must have a divine warrant for them all ? You must abolish all agencies, recall your missionaries, go yourself and do the work of an evangelist. How are you to have a board of directors for a seminary, or even a president of such a board ? How are the brethren able to serve under such boards in their seminaries ? Can you find any warrant for them in this Bible ? Dr. Thornwell may get it out by an inference, but I cannot find it there. And, when he said that the Church Extension Committee is the model of what he wants, I felt as if a soaring angel had fallen dovm to earth. "If these principles of Dr. Thornwell's kill the boards, they will kill the committees, which our brethren would substitute for the boards. In fact, it is a mere question of arithmetic — a board or a committee ; one hundred men or twenty men. And a commission amounts to the same thing. A commission and a committee ! Where the dif- ference, in the word or the thing ? Xo, no ! this doctrine, carried out, instead of making the church more efficient, will bring her efforts to a dead halt. "The conscientiousness, of which Dr. Thornwell so feelingly speaks, cannot be so serious a thing after all, diH MY LIFE A:ND times. as my brotlicr would make it. It is a long time since he began to advocate this theory, and to make its adoption a matter of conscience. Our brethren must have done vio- lence to their consciences for a long time, for they still work with our boards, and cooperate under a system which does such violence to their consciences. "But there is another ground of appeal of our brethren that ought to be noticed. They understand us to say that there is but a small difference between a board and a com- mittee. If it is so small a matter, ask they, why cannot you give it up ? We cannot give it up without casting re- proach upon all that have gone before us ; we cannot give it up without abandoning the past. We cannot give it up without yielding to pretensions that Ave believe to be un- authorized by scripture. We cannot give it up without sacrificing our Christian liberty ! And we will not give it up. The church has freedom of discretion in selecting the modes of her operation ; and to sacrifice this freedom to the claims of a high jure divino churchism, which we do not believe to be scriptural, we cannot and will not consent." In a rejoinder to Dr. Hodge's remarks, Dr. Thornwell said, "If my illustrious brother from Princeton had writ- ten out a speech to deliver before the Assembly in opposi- tion to my views, he could not possibly have wa'itten one which it would better suit me to answer than the one de- livered here on Saturday. He accepts the issues which are the true issues in this case, and has set before us the type of Presbyterian! sm of which the boards may be regarded as the natural development. There is a little preliminary skirmishing, which it may be necessary to notice before coming to the main issue, and to that let us first attend. "Dr. Plodge has concluded, from my principles, that I make the clergy the church. I am amazed at the charge, but still more amazed at the logic which sustains it. "Again, my brother has said that my principles are hyper-hyper-hyper High Presbyterianism, and I must re- tort that his principles are no, no, no Presbyterianism ; no, no, no churchism. His speech, sir, presented us with a little touch of democracy, a little touch of prelacy, and THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 379 a considerable slice of Quakerism, but no Presbyterian- ism. Surely, sir. Dr. Hodge's statement, that the church is found wherever the Holy Ghost is, cannot be taken without much qualification. Does not the Holy Ghost often dwell in the heart of the solitary individual ? But the church is an ors-anism, unitino- manv individuals into one bod}^ ''Again, the good brother appeals to authority for sanc- tion to his views of boards. We can appeal to fathers too. There have been martyrs who laid down their lives rather than deny the divine right of presbytery. The great author of the Second Book of Discipline, and many others of the glorious men of Scotland, held the views we now maintain. And we have living authorities, too — among whom is one who has no superior and few equals in either hemisphere — the great author of the Act and Testimony, the document that separated this church from error, to whom all Presbyterians are, therefore, under everlasting- obligations. But, Moderator, this question is not to be settled by human authority, but by the word of God. "Again, my brother twits me with supporting the boards while professing to be conscientiously opposed to the principles of their constitution. Would he have us to be factious ? Moderator, I never have said to my brethren, to whom I promised submission in the Lord, 'I cannot submit, I will not submit.' I will submit to my brethren, even where I think they are mistaken, if the submission be not sinful. "The good brother complains that we wish to lay a heavier yoke than the Jewish upon his neck. The burden we want to impose is more grievous than he can bear ; he must have liberty. Well, sir, what we bring him is, first, God's authority, and, secondly, God's giiidance ; and these constitute our notion of perfect freedom. "The idea of the brother, that if Paul were here he would pay no regard to this church court, but act inde- pendently of it, upon his own authority, filled me with astonishment. Paul surelv would not despise order nor contemn the authority which his divine Master has left in his church. Sir, we claim to be a true apostolic church. Paul is here. All the apostles are here. We have the 380 MY LIFE AND TIMES. very principles they inculcated, and the very order they inaugurated — and would Paul contemn these ? "But I made the good brother's remarks the occasion of consulting Paul on this very question before us, and I have his answer. He declares (Ephesians iv. 11) that the Lord, as his ascension gifts, 'gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,' and that 'God has set' these in his church, and 'appointed helps and governments' for it. "Put let us now pass to the main issue : the Presbyte- rianism of my brother from Princeton, and that which we hold to be the Presbvterianism of the Bible and of our constitution. The good brother, in his account of church government, has not signalized one principal ele- ment of this Presbyterianism. He named (1) the parity of the clergy. Why, sir, this is not a distinctive feature of Presbyterian church government. All the evangelical sects, except the Episcopal, hold to that. (2) He named the authority of the people. Why, sir, that also is not dis- tinctive of Presbyterianism. The Congregationalists hold that in intenser degree than we do. (3) The Doctor mentioned the unity of the church. And is that pe- culiar to us ? Why, Rome holds that with a vehemence we do not put forth ! Such are the three points signal- ized by the brother as the main points of our system. Look at them, and see what they compose. Is that Pres- byterianism— a little of everything, but nothing distinc- tive ? "Sir, the principles which really distinguish us from other evangelical churches are : "1. The principle of representative government — of government by parliamentary courts, composed of pres- byters duly appointed and ordained. A single congrega- tion is governed by the parochial presbytery ; several associated congregations by the classical presbytery ; the whole church, by a presbytery of representative presby- ters from all its bounds. This is the first element that distinguishes us from Congregationalists and from pre- latists — government not by individual rulers, but assem- blies of presbyters. Do we ignore the people, then ? Far from it; the people are there representatively; they are THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 381 there as presbyters, all of them alike being men whom they have chosen to represent them. "2. The members of these representative assemblies must be of two classes, belonging to the one order of pres- byters. All of them belong to the one order of rulers, and only as rulers, chosen rulers, or representatives of the people, can they appear in these courts. But they are of two classes, viz., (1) presbyters who only rule, and (2) presbyters who rule and also labor in the word and doc- trine. This gives us the second element of our repre- sentative government, and answers to the two houses which are found to be so excellent a help to wise and safe legislation. "Presbyterians, therefore, hold to the parity of the eldership, not only, as Dr. Hodge seems to think, to the parity of the 'clergy' (that is, of the teaching elders, or ministers), but also to the parity of all presbyters, as presbyters or rulers of the Lord's house. I take my brother, the ruling elder, when I meet him in any church court, by the hand as my brother and my peer. As pres- byters, as members of any presbytery, from the lowest to the highest, we are all perfectly equal in authority, al- though some of us have another function or office, being ordained to labor also in the word and doctrine. I may here refer to an article in the last number of the Prince- ton Review^ which goes to abolish and overthrow, alto- gether, the office of the ruling elder, and this Presbyterian doctrine of the parity of all presbyters. "3. A third distinctive feature of Presbyterian church government is the way in which it realizes the unity of the church. It realizes this idea by the elasticity of its parliamentary representative system. If there were but one congregation on earth, its session would be the parlia- ment of the whole church ; if half a dozen, the representa- tives from each would constitute a parliament for the whole church; if a still larger number, the same results would follow. So representatives from all the churches (or from the smaller parliaments, which is the same prin- ciple) constitute the parliament for the whole church. "Only two churches on the earth realize this idea of church unitv — Eome and our own church. But these are 382 MY LIFE AND TIMES. tlic poles apart as to the system by which they realize it. Kome, with her infallible pope at the head, and with graded authorities extending over the whole earth, one class subservient to another, and all to the pope, secures a terrible unity, binding all abjectly to a single throne. Our system, on the other hand, secures unity in consis- tency with the most perfect freedom. "'Now, look, brethren, at the Presbyterianism advo- cated by the brother from Princeton, and then at that which I have feebly attempted to portray ; 'look first on this picture, and then look on that,' and say which of them is the Presbyterianism of the Bible, which is your Presby- terianism. "I will refer to one more point, the power of the repre- sentative assemblies of rulers. It is simply 'ministerial and declarative.' They cannot make laws for God's peo- ple ; the}' only declare and administer the revealed laws of the Lord's house. They have a certain commission entrusted to them, and no power beyond what is necessary to execute that commission. Now, in the organization of our boards, there is allowed a power beyond what the church is authorized to put forth. There is constituted a society, separate from the church, for church purposes. The board is a missionary society beyond the church, out- side of the church, a distinct organism, and our executive committee is the hand of this society, not the hand of the church. The board is not the executive agent of the As- sembly. It is, in fact, not an executive agency at all. The executive committee is the hand of the board, and the board stands off as a missionary society, and to it the ex- ecutive committee reports. Instead of creating a hand, and an executive agency of the Assembly, we created a society, in imitation of the American Board of Foreign Missions, or the American Home Missionary Society, and transferred to it the work of missions. The board is not expected to do anything but appoint the executive com- mittee, and receive its report, adopt it, and then report to the Assembly. ISTow, by a true construction of our system, the General Assembly is the board of domestic missions. The executive committee ought to be the hand of the Assembly, and directly responsible to it. But this THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 383 is not the case. Another organization, a* society whose members are not identical with the members of the church, and Avhose officers are not church officers, is inter- posed between the executive agency and the Assembly, Avhich ought to control. What, then, do you need ? To abolish the board, and have the General Assembly act as the board of missions for the church, or rather, the church act through the assembly. I care not for the name ; let our executive agency be called a board or a committee, no matter. But, let it be the hand of the church to collect and disburse her benefactions and do her work. What lias a board ever done ''i You see from this year's report of the board it does nothing. Many of its members never attend. Many do not know they are members, and others do not care. Its meetings are mere matters of form. The board relies on the Assembly, and the Assembly relies on the board, and supervision is defeated. "When you lay down the proposition that the church is 'the missionary agency, you make every church member a member, and lay upon him the responsibility of doing his duty. Under our present organization, we know that is not felt. "Moderator, I have now discharged, according to my ability, a solemn public duty. I have stood up for prin- ciples that I solemnly believe to be fundamental in our system, and of incalculable importance to the welfare and advancement of our glorious cause. I love the Avhole catholic church ; but I love the Presbyterian Church with a fervor and a devotion which I cannot utter, and I do de- sire to see her put in that position that I believe she must occupy, in order to the accomplishment of her mission in pouring the blessings of peace and salvation upon our whole land, and upon the nations. I want the church to come up to this mission in her own proper organization, with her own officers, and in her own power, executing her commissions herself, without delegating to any out- side organism those functions and duties to perform, which is her higliest glory. When they ask the people to contribute, let her ministers speak, not in the name of this board or that board, but in the name of Zion and her glori- ous king. Let them ever press the idea that it is not the 384 MY T.IFE AND TTAfES. cause of a board of human ci-eatiou, hut of the blood- bought church and her exalted Head." Subsequently, Dr. Hodge said that he rose reluctantly. He rose rather in obedience to the wishes of friends and brethren, than by the impulse of his own mind; but it was, perhaps, due to himself and his position to say a word or two. On Saturday last, in what he said, there occurred three sentences, which Dr. Thornwell had held up sometimes in a ludicrous, sometimes in a portentous light, and out of them had constructed and attributed to him a theory of church government which he utterly re- pudiated, ile held no such theory. If Dr. Thornwell's was the sentiment of this house, then he was unworthy to hold, at the hands of this Assembly, the place in which he had labored for almost forty years. "Permit me, Mr. Moderator, to state, in very few words, what my theory of Presbyterianism is. It involves the following principles : "1. That all the attributes and prerogatives of the church of God on earth are derived from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. "2. Consequently, that the prerogatives of the church belong, in the first instance, in sensu primo, to the people, and not exclusively to the clergy. This is the great dis- tinctive principle of Protestantism. "'S. That these prerogatives are to be exercised, through the organs, and, according to the rules, prescribed in the word of God. "4. That the Holy Spirit, dwelling in all the children of God, making them one body in Christ Jesus, distributes gifts to each one severally as he wills. To one he gives the gifts of an apostle, to another those of a prophet, to another those of a teacher, to another those of ruling, etc. "5. That of these organs or officers of the apostolic church, some were intended to be permanent, others tem- porary. The criteria for discriminating between the per- manent and temporary offices are : ( 1 ) The nature of the gifts involved in them. It was plenary revelation and inspiration which constituted an apostle. If that gift has ceased, the office has ceased. It was occasional inspira- tion which constituted a prophet; if that gift is no longer THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 385 granted, we have no longer a class of living prophets. (2) When there is an express command that a given office should be continued; or (3) When the qualifications, which are to be required in candidates for the office, are prescribed, then the office is permanent. (4) And, finally, when it can be proved, historically, that an office has, in fact, been continued from the apostolic through all suc- ceeding ages. "6. That the officers, thus ascertained to be permanent, are ministers of the word, ruling elders, and deacons. "7. That, as there is no class of officers above the pres- byters, no gifts higher than those which constitute a minister of the word, presbyters are the highest perma- nent officers of the church, and stand all on the same level ; all have the same office and the same prerogatives. This is the parity of the clergy. There are no apostles, no prophets, and, of course, no prelates. ''8. That the right of the people, to take part in the government of the church, is exercised through their rep- resentatives, the ruling elders. Here is the principle of representation, and here is the foundation of the peculiar character of our church courts. They are composed of two elements, a lay and clerical, ministers and elders. This representation of the people is, first, in the session, then in the presbytery, then in the synod, and then in the General Assembly. In all, the elders have the same right with the ministers to participate in the exercise of all the powers of the church — executive, legislative, and judicial. They are in our courts, not by courtesy, not by human ordinance, but by divine right. "9. That, as the Spirit of God, dwelling in all believers, makes them one body ; as the " command to obey our brethren in the Lord is not limited to those brethren who may belong to the same congregation with ourselves ; as it is not founded on mere proximity, nor on any mutual cov- enant, but on the fact that they are our brethren, in whom the Spirit dwells, therefore, the church is one ; therefore, a smaller part is subject to a larger, a larger to the whole, a session to the presbytery, a presbytery to the synod, and the synods to the General Assembly. "This is my Presbyterianism. T am not ashamed of it. 386 MY LIFE AND TIMES. I am willing to avow it here and elsewhere, and stand or fall by it.""^ Such Avas the great debate at Rochester, IST. Y., on the board question, between the respective representatives of what was soon to become the Northern Presbyterian Church and the Southern Presbyterian Church. The question debated was in this form : ''-Resolved, That it is inexpedient to make any organic change in the organiza- tion of the Board of Domestic Missions." It is always an awkward thing to debate a negative proposition, and so it is always both awkward and confusing to vote upon a resolution that is at once negative and equivocal. ISTever- theless, the majority of the Assembly preferred that form of the question, and the minority yielded to them this great advantage. So the vote stood, yeas, 234; nays, 56. But this vote did not fairly exhibit the real state of opinion in the Assembly, which is sufficiently proved by the subsequent action of the body in resolutions adopted in order to conform the boards to the views and wishes of the minority. The first of these required every member of the board to be made aware of his membership by a formal letter from the secretary, and also to be informed of the times of the regular meetings of the board ; and also, when a special meeting Avas required, of the date and business of the proposed meeting. The second required every board to send up to the As- sembly, with its annual report, its own book of minutes, and also the minutes of its executive committee's meetings for the examination of the Assembly. The third made it unlawful to issue honorary member- ships for money. The fourth refused, by a large majority, to appoint any travelling secretary. Besides these resolutions, which wore adopted by the Assembly, there was a motion, by the Hon. eludge Lord, of Oswego, to reduce the number of the board one-half, namely, from ninety-six to forty-eight members, but, on the plea that many members of the Assembly had already departed, the dissolution of the body being so near at hand, this motion was laid on the table. THE CO]!*fTKOVEESIES OF MY TIMES. 387 Let it also be observed that after the war, the Okl and Xew School Assemblies were reunited at the ISTorth, and that, upon this event, there was a total revolution of the board system, and, while the name of board was retained, it came to be the very executive committee of some twelve or fifteen members, for which the minority had con- tended. Finally, Dr. Hodge, evidently much dissatisfied with the efiiciency of his argument at Rochester, notwithstand- ing he was sustained by the majority, went home and re- newed the discussion in written form in the pages of the Princeton Review. Dr. Thornwell, immediately after the Assembly, had gone to Europe for the summer. On his return, finding that Dr. Hodge had reopened the de- bate through the press, and being himself master both of written and spoken words, replied through the Southern Presbyterian Review of January, 1861. The reader will find Dr. Hodge's written argument in the fourth volume of ThornweU's Collected Writings, where we have also given place to Dr. Smyth's defence of church boards. The Eldek Controversy. If the board controversy was a sort of remainder from the original controversy between the Old and the ISTew School Presbyterians, so also did the elder controversy necessarily follow that about the boards. This subject of the ruling elder first came before the Assembly of 1842, I know not how, and was passed over as unfinished busi- ness to the next. The Assembly of 1843 took up this un- finished business, but the discussion which followed evinced great confusion in the minds of the speakers gen- erally on both sides. It was finally resolved that ^'any three ministers constitute a legal quorum of a presbytery without the presence of any ruling elder," and also "that ruling elders may not join with ministers in the ordina- tion of a minister." Respecting this decision of the As- sembly, Breckinridge writes to his friend, Thornwell, in July, 1843, expressing his "distress and mortification at the result of the matter about ruling elders, in the last Assembly." He says, "I knew the church was not ready for the question ; but I had no conception of the extent 388 MY LIFE AND TIMES. of its ignorance and false principles. I had no hand in bringing on the question there, none in bringing it up; and desired its discussion put off. Last year (1842), when I was in the Assembly, they put it off, rather than hear me on it ; this year they would not hear of delay." But in the fall of 1843, he delivered before the Synod of Philadelphia, in Baltimore, two masterly arguments on the two points, so unhappily decided by the previous As- sembly. 'J^hese great speeches were, of course, thoroughly prepared beforehand, but they were speeches indeed, not written out and memorized. In a letter to his friend, of date JSTovember 27th, he says, "I have been very busy for the last two weeks, in all odd times, writing out my argu- ment, delivered before our Synod, on the quorum of a presbytery ; and am about to write out that on the ques- tion of ordination." He adds, "I have written them out at the request of the large majority of the ruling elders of this city (Baltimore). I consider the whole question of church order involved in the two propositions, and treat them accordingly ; for if jurisdiction or ordination be in the hands of preachers, as preachers, there is an end of Presbyterianism." These arguments subsequently ap- peared in The Presbyterian, a paper published in Phila- delphia, and a very large edition was put forth in pam- phlet form, with the significant title, "Presbyterian Gov- ernment not a Hierarchy, but a Commonwealth, and Pres- byterian Ordination not a Charm, but an Act of Govern- ment." They are not now accessible to students of this subject — would that they were ! But Dr. Thornwell's re- view of them in the Southern Presbyterian Review, Vol. II. J makes frequent quotations, and will give any reader an idea of their value, and this review may be found in the fourth volume of ThorniuelV s Collected Writings. Thus it came to pass that, as Dr. Thornwell first brought on the controversy about boards at Augusta, in 1840, so it may be properly stated that his eminent friend made, b}^ these two arguments, the real beginning of the con- troversy on the ruling eldership question. Dr. Breckinridge considers the whole question of church order involved in his two propositions. Dr. Palmer says, "They go to the very core of our Presby- THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 389 terian system;" and the discussion upon them was far more earnest and long continued than that previously maintained on the subject of boards. It has resulted, so far as the Southern Presbyterian Church is concerned, in the complete establishment of sound scriptural views re- specting the matter. These speeches of Dr. Breckinridge are not before me, and they are, in fact, out of print ; but I remember well, having carefully studied them, how elaborate, instructive, satisfactory, as well as eloquent, they are. But they oc- cupy many pages, and Dr. Thornwell's review of them extends through seventy more. I make no attempt to present to the reader in full the contents of this very learned and luminous review. I endeavor only a very brief account of the way in which he presents the argu- ment of his friend, and then proceeds to add thereto some- what fully his own views of the subject. "The General Assembly decided that three ministers of any presbytery will constitute its quorum^ ; Dr. Breckinridge maintains that no court of the Presbyterian Church can be regularly, legally, or completely constituted without the presence of ruling elders as members thereof. The question is not as to the essential being of a presbytery, but as to its regularity, legality, and completeness. Ministers prop- erly ordained are presbyters ; a presbytery is a college of presbyters ; therefore, a presbytery, in extraordinary cir- cumstances, may be composed exclusively of ministers. On the same principle, as ruling elders, according to the scriptures, are presbyters, and, as a presbytery is nothing but a college of presbyters, it is equally obvious that a * '"Quorum," says Eouvier, in his law dictionary, "used substan- tively, signifies the number of persons belonging to a legislative assembly, a corporation, society or other body, required to transact business." The word is strictly Latin, the genitive plural of a pro- noun, and came into use as a common noun in our language from a clause in the second branch of the Commission of the Peace accus- tomed to be issued by the crown of England, in which the powers of justices, when assembled in sessions, are created and defined. The clause in question begins, "We have also assigned to you, and every two or more of you, of whom (quorum) any one of you, the afore- said A, B, C, D, etc., we will sliall be one." etc. 390 MY LIFE AND TIMES. true presbytery, in extraordinary circumstances, may be composed exclusively of ruling elders. In an unsettled or formative condition of the church, presbyter ial acts may, from the necessity of the case, be performed by courts de- fective in one or other of their constitutional elements. And yet these acts need not be despised as invalid. For four years after its formation, the first presbytery of the Secession Church of Scotland, the presbytery of Erskine, Fisher, Moncrieff, and Wilson, consisted only of these four ministers. But, to affirm that because a court con- sisted exclusively of ministers, may, in extraordinary cir- cumstances, be acknowledged a valid presbytery, there- fore, in a settled church state, such a court is to be treated as legitimate and proper, carries with it no force that cannot be applied equally %vell to the case of a body of ruling elders without the presence of a teaching elder. "The real point in dispute, therefore, is whether, in a settled church state, or under the operation of our o^vn system, a classical or synodical assembly can ever be legit- imately constituted without the presence of ruling elders. This question may appear to be very minute, but, as Dr. Breckinridge observes, the ultimate principle involved is one of the most important and comprehensive that could be submitted to the people of God. It is the question whether the final power and actual authority are in the hands of preachers as such, or of the body of the Chris- tian people to be exercised through officers regularly elected by them. This is, indeed, a question whose fear- ful scope is manifest upon every page of the history of Christianity." Dr. Thornwell's first argument against the decision of the Assembly is that "it contradicts the whole analogy of Presbyterian polity. That polity constitutes our church a commonw^ealth. But the full force of this state- ment is generally misapprehended." Dr. Thornwell re- fers to the noble panegyric that Milton pronounces upon a free commonwealth as "the noblest, the manliest, the equalest, the justest government, the most agreeable to all due liberty and proportionate equality," etc. But he proceeds to pronounce the scheme of Milton as grossly de- fective, in that the highest council of his republic was to THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 391 be a permanent assembly. Thornwell explains how that great man came to make this blunder, ''but, while Mil- ton's mode of applying the principle of representation is to be condemned, he clearly perceived upon what its pe- culiar value depends. Its excellence consists in the prob- ability it furnishes that reason only shall sway. The danger of democracy is from the passions and the igno- rance of the people; the danger of monarchy from the caprices, the tyranny, and the ambition of the king ; and the danger of an oligarchy, from the selfishness incident to privileged orders. Reason, whose voice is the will of God, is much more likely to prevail in a deliberative as- sembly constituted of the real representatives of the peo- ple. It is a great mistake to suppose that the end of gov- ernment is to accomplish the will of the people. The state is a divine ordinance, a social institute founded on the principle of justice. It has great moral purposes to subserve. The will of the people should be done only when the people will what is right. The representative principle is a check upon their power, an expedient to re- strain what would otherwise be an intolerable despotism. There is no misapprehension more dangerous than that which confounds representative government with the essential principle of a pure democracy. It is not because the whole people cannot meet, but because they ought not to meet, that the representative council, in modern times, is preferred to the ancient convocations in the forum or the market-place. Power has a natural tendency to settle into despotism; and the legitimate ends of the state may be as completely defeated by the absolute power of the people as by the absolute power of a single ruler. Absolute power is tyranny, whether in the hands of large masses, of privileged orders, or of single individuals." Dr. Thornwell next points out two conditions which must belong to the full and proper use of the representa- tive system: the representative must have an accurate knowledge of the people's circumstances and wants, and he must also have a fixed purpose to aim at the collective interests of the whole body. To this end the election of representatives is to be entrusted to small communities ; and each representative is not to be simply the organ of a 392 MY LIFE AXl) TIMES. narrow section, but the representative of all sections col- lectively. There must also be checks imposed on these assemblies themselves. Accordingly, the freest modern States have adopted the principle of two chambers, be- longing to different classes. This is a vast improvement upon the single council of Milton. It is, perhaps, as great an improvement upon the representative principle as the representative principle itself was upon that of deputies in the Middle Ages. Now, the description which has just been given of a commonwealth in the state is an exact picture, in its essential features, of Presbyterian government in the church. The very principles which the progress of modern society has developed, were found imbedded in the Presbytei'ian system ages before a truly representative republic existed upon earth. The first characteristic principle of our system is the government of the church by free representative assem- blies. This distinguishes us from prelacy on the one hand, and Independency on the other. Ours is a govern- ment, not by presbyters, but by presbyteries ; and if we deny that such assemblies are essential to our system, we deny, at the same time, that our system is a common- wealth. In the next place, Dr. Thornwell proceeds to show how, in the composition of our assemblies, the principle of two chambers is introduced. This end is accomplished by two classes of representatives. The ministers are a check upon the elders, and the elders are a check upon the ministers. Moreover, our higher courts are a check upon the lower. A government, exclusively in the hands of ministers, is fraught with danger to them and to the people, against which all ecclesiastical history is a solemn warning. Such assemblies might give the church the form of a common- wealth, but the spirit of liberty would soon depart. The possession of power would produce its natural effects, the ministry would aspire to be a privileged class, and the people would soon lose all the significance and importance which our system attaches to them. On the other hand, a government exclusively in the hands of the elders, would lean too much to popular will. Identified com- pletely with their own people, they might be tempted to THE COXTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 393 aim at local and sectional advantages, thus regarding themselves as mere deputies, instead of representatives. But, with our double representation, clerical despotism and popular passion are equally discouraged. We can- not, therefore, attach too much importance to the office of ruling elder in its relation to our church courts. Upon it the security of our liberties mainly depends ; it is the principal means, under God, of making the church, not only a commonwealth, but a free commonwealth, the "'noblest, manliest, justest, equalest" government on earth. Then Dr. Thornwell makes plain that the Presbyte- rianism Avhich the Assembly has sanctioned, is a maimed and partial thing — as different from that of our standards and the standards of all the Presbyterian Churches as a statue is different from a man. The form of a common- wealth may exist under it, and will continue to exist as long as the ministers are pastors, but the vitality is gone, the arteries of the body become withered and dried the very moment ruling elders, fresh from the people, with feelings, habits, and interests, which identify them with their constituents, are removed from our courts. ''This, then," says Dr. Thornwell, ''is our first argu- ment. The resolution of the Assembly contradicts the whole analogy of our government ; it mars the perfection of our representative system ; it removes one of its most important securities, and leaves the church in the hands of rulers who are least acquainted with the details of its interests, and strongly tempted in the absence of salutary checks, to pursue abstractions, or to exalt themselves into a privileged class. . . . When we consider the mul- titude of ministers without charge, the facility of in- creasing their number, and the lax discipline which permits them to exercise the full power of scriptural bishops, the danger seems to us more than imaginary, which threatens the balance of our system when elders are treated as comparatively unimportant. ... To dispense with elders in the assemblies of the church is to sever the cords which bind the hearts of our people to their government, and to prepare the way for converting a free, vigorous and healthful commonwealth into a sa- 394 MY LIFE AND TIMES. cred aristocracy. Perpetual vigilance is the price of liberty." There are other arguments, of striking force, with which Dr. Thornwell evinces how greatly the Assembly erred on the quorum question. But it is time to proceed to his review of Dr. Breckinridge's second speech. This concerns the right of ruling elders to lay on hands in the ordination of a minister, which the Assembly of 1843 denied. The Assembly of 1844 reaffirmed the decision of its predecessor, pronounced ordina- tion to be a '' rite," and treated it simply as " a de- claratory ministerial act." The point in dispute, there- fore, involved the very nature of ordination. In the course of the controversy, two distinct issues had l^een pre- sented, namely, whether ordination is an act of the power of jurisdiction, and is therefore joint and not several, or whether it l)elongs to the power of order, and therefore to be performed only by those who have power to ordain a minister. It was generally conceded that ordination belongs to a court ; but, upon this supposition that it is an act of government, the question was, whether there be not something so peculiar in it that the only rulers who are competent to execute it are ministers themselves. Still it was felt that there was nothing analogous in it to preaching, nor to the administration of the sacraments, nor to any other function which pertained to ministers, in their individual relations, as preachers of the word. Then it became a question whether, supposing it be- longed to the court, still tlie administration of it ought not to be confined to those members of the court who pos- sessed the office to which the candidate was about to be set apart. This, as I interpret Dr. Thornwell's language, is about the form in which the subject was first apprehended by the General Assembly of 1843. There were two leading grounds on which the doctrine of the Assend)ly of 1843 was defended. First, that ordi- nation confers ministerial authority, is a sort of spiritual generation of spiritual teachers, and, therefore, can be bestowed only by those who already possess it, upon the obvious principle that a man cannot give to others what he has not himself. Secondly, that ordination pertains only THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 395 -to scriptural presbyters, and that, as ruling elders are not the presbyters of scripture, they have no right to unite with the presbytery in the performance of a strictly pres- byterial act. This seems to us to have been the state of the controversy when the Assembly of 1844 met. That Assembly made another issue, by denying that ordination is an act of government at all, by pronouncing it to be a rite, and by referring it to the category of order rather than jurisdiction. In every aspect of the case, the char- acteristic principles of our system w^ere involved. It was certainly a matter of some moment to determine what ordination is. The consequence attached to it by pre- latists and papists, the bitter controversies it has occa- sioned in the church, and its obvious relations to the authority and duties of the ministry, required that we should at least be settled in our own views as to what constitutes its essence. Our church ought to have a defi- nite testimony; and yet their recent agitations had re- vealed the melancholy fact that, upon this whole subject, our language to each other, to other churches, and to the world, was as confused and contradictory as the dialects of Babel. It was also a matter of some moment that the office of ruling elder should be clearly apprehended. Was he a mere deputy of the people, clothed w^ith delegated power, and only the organ of the constituents who elect him ? Or was he an oliicer, divinely appointed, clothed with jurisdiction by the authority of God, and elected by the people to discharge the duties which Christ had con- nected with his office ? Was he, or w^as he not, the presby- ter of the scriptures ? These surely were not slight ques- tions ; they affected the very heart of our system ; and, in deciding them, we settled the distinctive principles of our government. We are, therefore, required to say whether we believe, with the papists, that ordination is a sacrament; with the prelatists, that it belongs to the power of order ; with the Independents, that it belongs to the people ; or with the great body of the Reformed church, that it belongs to the power of jurisdiction, is an act of government, and must be administered by the legit- imate courts of God's house. We are required to say whether ruling elders are lawful members of ecclesiastical 396 MY LIFE A'SD TIMES. courts, are tlie presbyters of scripture, or are mere iri- trnders into congregational, classical, and synod ical as- semblies. We are required, in other words, to say whether we are Presbyterians or not. The points, which Dr. Breckinridge discusses in the speech before us, are, ''that the whole work of the ordina- tion of ministers of the word belongs regularly and prop- erly to a presbytery composed of preaching and ruling elders ; and that the presbytery, which should impose hands, is the same as that which performs all the rest of the work of ordination." His doctrine, in other words, is that ordination is an act of government, and appropriately belongs to the rulers of God's house judicially convened, that it is the exercise of joint, and not of several power, and cannot be restricted to one class of elders more than to another. Every elder, who is a member of the court, whether he be a preacher or not, may participate in the execution of the act. "This speech, like the former," says Dr. Thornwell, "may be divided into three parts. The first presents what may be called the constitutional argument ; the second illustrates the propriety and fitness of the provis- ions of our standards, on which the constitutional argu- ment depends j and the third is devoted to the doctrine of other churches, in reference to the point in dispute, as this doctrine is gathered from the authorized symbols of their faith. Any language which should at all be pro])or- tioned to our convictions of the ability with which these topics are discussed, would, to those who have never in- vestigated the subject, seem to be extravagant. Dr. Thornwell continues : "It seems to us that the op- position to Dr. Breckinridge's theory arises from a two- fold error ; the first having reference to the nature of ordination itself, and the second to the office of the ruling elder. What, then, is ordination ? "In the first place, the very term itself obviously im- plies, what every definition, whether Protestant or Papal, Prelatic, Presbyterian, or Congregational, assumes, as a conceded proposition, that the ministry of the gospel is an ordo. Ordination has evidently some relation to this ordo, and our views of this relation must depend upon THE COXTROVEKSIES OF MY TIMES. 397 our previous conceptions of the source and nature of that, whatever it is, which constitutes the essence of the order. "According' to Kome, three sacraments — baptism, con- firmation, and orders — impress an indelible character on the soul. This character, whatever it is, which the sac- rament of orders confers, constitutes the difference be- tween the clergy and the laity. There is a mark upon the souls of the one which is not found upon the souls of the other. Orders communicate the power as a personal and substantive possession, to distribute to others the blessings of the covenant. In correspondence with this view of the nature of the order, Rome teaches that ordination is a sacrament, and, as a sacrament, actually impresses the indelible character which distinguishes the priesthood. It is that which makes a man a priest, the only divine call- ing which can justify a creature in ministering at the altar. His ordination and his commission from above are one and the same thing. '^According to the Church of England, Hooker, author of the Ecclesiastical Polity, being our authority, 'minis- terial power,' which he does not scruple to call a mark or a character, acknowledged to be indelible, 'is a mark of separation, because it severeth them that have it from other men, and maketh them a special order, consecrated unto the service of the Most High in things wherewith others may not meddle.' As in the church of Rome, so in this Protestant communion, ordination is the only valid commission which a man can legitimately plead to ad- minister the ordinances of God. 'Canonical ordination,' says Hooker, 'in the church of Christ, is that which makes a lawful minister.' The very words which the bishop employs at ordination are conclusive proof that ordina- tion is regarded as the real communication of a divine warrant to discharge the duties of a minister. It creates a right to the ordo. It impresses the character or bestows the power which is distinctive of the rank; so that the relation of ordination to the ordo, in the churches of England and Rome, is essentially the same. Their bishops undertake, in the name of God, to call and com- mission the ministry for its work. ''But, according to our doctrine, and the doctrine of the 398 MY LIFE AND TIMES. great body of the Reformed clnirclies of Europe, the right to the ministerial office depends npon the calling of God. A divine vocation, imparting a spiritual fitness for the work, is the only mark or character which distinguishes the ministry from every other class of men. Those gifts of the Holy Ghost, that heavenly and powerful unction, by which God qualifies his agents for the positions to which he has assigned them, are the only badges of the order which the scriptures lead us to recognize. Hence, upon our principles, ordination must sustain a very dif- ferent relation to the ordo from that which is ascribed to it in the churches of England and Rome. As with us, it is God, through the Spirit, who imparts the ministerial commission, and conveys the right to discharge the duties of the office, as God, and God alone, can communicate the distinctive qualities of the ordo^ ordination, with us, can only be an acknowledgment of the fact that a man is a minister of God, and entitled to rule and to teach in his church. We do not undertake to put into the hands of ministers their divine warrant for their work; we only receive and set our seal to the credentials which God has given. Presbyterian ordination imparts nothing, whether character, power, grace, or privilege. It is neither a charm nor a commission ; it is a simple acknowledgment of what God has done. God has appointed ordination as a public recognition, on the part of his cliurch, of the rights which he has supernaturally conferred. It is the established mode in Avhich it is made to appear that he has called and anointed the subject of it for the work of the ministry. "Such we apprehend to be the nature of Presbyterian ordination ; and every other hypothesis, as it seems to us, must proceed upon the assumption of prelatists and papists, that it is in the power of man to communicate the distinctive peculiarities of the ministerial order. Every other doctrine must make ordination the commis- sion of the ministry. The mystical jargon about the transmission of authority, the communication of power, the delegation of office, is essentially prelatic; and we can conceive of no theory of ordination which renders it incompatible for an elder to partake in it, which does not THE COXTKOVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 399 assume that its relation to the ordo is that for which pre- latists and Eomanists contend. "The other error rehites to the nature of the office of the ruling elder. It is becoming common to represent it, not as the immediate appointment and institution of Christ, the only King and Head of the church, but as the creature of the people, possessed of no other powers but those which thej have chosen to entrust to it. The elder can do nothing but what the people themselves might do. Christ gave them the power of jurisdiction, and they transfer it to the elder. According to this extraordinary theory, the people, in mass, might constitute, in connec- tion with the ministry, the various judicial assemblies of the church. This makes our church government to be an odd mixture of an elective aristocracy, the clergy, and a pure democracy, the people. But this theory is abso- lutely false, unsupported by a single text of scripture or a single doctrine of our standards. It is a new thing under the sun, to maintain the judicial power of the peo- ple. Christ has not committed the government of the church into their hands directly. The language of our law is as clear and explicit as language can be made. 'The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of the church, hath therein appointed a government in the hands of church officers.'' Xot a word is said about the right of the people to co- operate in all acts of discipline and government. To these officers, and not directly to the people, are committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This doctrine is largely declared in various passages of our standards. Such also' is the doctrine of Owen, which we recognize to be the true doctrine of the scriptures, that 'all church power in acta primo, or fundamentally, is in the church itself; in actii secundo, or its exercise, in them that are especially called thereunto.' 'He hath instituted,' says this great man, 'and appointed the offices themselves, and made a grant of them unto the church for its edification, as also he hath determined and limited the powers and duties of the officers. It is not in the power of any, or of all the churches in the world, to appoint any office, or officer, in the church that Christ hath not appointed.' In the com- munication of church power in office unto any person 400 :\rY life axd times. calkMJ thereimto, the work and duty of the church consist, formally, in acts of obedience unto the commands of Christ. Hence it doth not give unto such officers a power or authority that was formally and actually in the body of the community, by virtue of any grant or law of Christ, so as that they should receive and act the power of the church by virtue of a delegation from them ; but only they design, choose, set apart, the individual persons, who thereon are entrusted with office power by Christ hims(df, according as was before declared. ''This error, that the people, and not Christ, are the direct and immediate source of all the power and author- ity committed to the office of ruling elder, has arisen from a total misapprehension of the title with which they dis- tinguish him, the representative of the people. A repre- sentative and a delegate are essentially distinct ; they differ, not merely, as Lord Brougham * seems to suppose, in the extent of the subjects on which they are authorized to act, but in the relation which they bear to those who elect them. The officers are radically and essentially dis- tinct. A deputy is simply the locum tenens of his prin- cipal, the creature of instructions, which he cannot con- sistently transcend^ — a substitute, and nothing more. A representative, on the other hand, is a confidential agent, pursuing the dictates of his own understanding, and bound to act in conformity with his own private convic- tions of right. A deputy is an organ through whom the will of his constituents is declared ; a representative de- liberates and acts for his constituents, and upon his own personal responsibility must endeavor to promote the true interests of the people, whatever may be their temporary whims or caprices. Burke was a noble representative, hut not a deputy, when he declared to the electors of Bris- tol, 'I did not obey your instructions ; no ! I conformed to the instructions of truth and nature and maintained your interest, against your opinions, with a constancy that became me ;' and Chatham understood the true nature of his office, though he mav have erred on a point of eti- quette, when he declined presenting a petition from his constituents of Bath. * Political Philosophy. Vol. III., Clia]). vi., p. 31. THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 401 "Representative government is a different kind of gov- ernment from a pure democracy. It is essentially a limi- tation upon the people ; they choose representatives, be- cause it is not safe that they themselves should discharge the functions of legislators or rulers. In human govern- ments, the power of representatives may, for the most part, be ultimately traced to the people, as this whole sys- tem of polity is generally, though not always, the off- spring of popular will. In establishing this species of government, the people create the office of representative, define its powers, specify its duties, and settle its rights. They form a constitution, the very object of which is to prevent the accumulation of too much power in their own hands, to restrain the supremacy of their o^vn will, and to check the tendencies of absolute authority to abuse and tyranny. This constitution, once fixed, is the immediate source of all power to all the representatives chosen under it ; to it, and to it alone, must they appeal for a knowledge of their rights, privileges and duties. It, and not the will of tliose who elect them, becomes their law. Their rela- tions to the constitution, which equally binds them and their constituents, render it absurd that they should be treated as mere organs, machines, or automatons, through which others act. It deserves, further, to be remarked that, in all organized states, in which the representative principle is a part of the constitution, the representatives possess powers and discharge functions to which their constituents, as a mass, can lay no claim, putting it, in this way, beyond all doubt that a representative and deputy are fundamentally distinct. "In the church, the representative government is not, as in the state, even ultimately the creature of the people ; it is the direct appointment of Christ, and the powers and duties of ecclesiastical representatives are prescribed and defined in the word of God, the real constitution of the church. They are represented as rulers, and not as tools ; they are to study and administer the laws of the Saviour, and not bend to the caprices of the people ; and they are to listen to no authoritative instructions but those which have proceeded from the throne of God. Ohrist never gave to the people, as a mass, any right to 402 MY LIFE A^D TIMES. exercise jurisdiction, or to administer discipline. Thej cannot appear in session or presbytery. It is not only in- convenient that they should be there in their collective ca- pacity, but they have no right to be there. The privilege of their attentling as members, as component elements of the court, would be destructive of all the ends which rep- resentation is designed to secure ; it would subvert the whole system of government. The business of the people is to elect the men who give sufficient evidence that they are fitted by the Spirit to fill the offices which Christ has appointed. 'This is the power and right given unto the church, essentially considered with respect unto their officers, namely, to design, call, choose, and set apart the persons by the ways of Christ's appointment unto those offices whereimto by his laws he hath annexed church power and authority.' These men represent the people, because they are the choice of the people. The term rep- resentative, therefore, is equivalent to chosen ruler ; it designates the manner in which the office is acquired, and not the source of its powers. When elders, consequently, are styled in our standards the representatives of the peo- ple, it is a total misapprehension to suppose that the meaning intended to be conveyed is that they are the- deputies or delegates of the people, occupying a position and exercising powers which the people themselves might occupy and exercise. The title imports nothing more than that they are the persons whom the people have selected, as dul_^6 qualified and called of God, to perform the func- tions which Christ has enjoined upon the rulers of his house. The people, as such, possess not a single element of the potestas jurisdictlonis which pertains to the elders and the courts of the church." Dr. Thornwell now proceeds to say that from the fore- going ex])lanation of the term representative it is per- fectly obvious that pastors, by which word he means min- isters, are as truly representatives of tlie people as are ruling elders. The reason why the title representatives^ is not given to them, as well as to tlie ruling elders, is that they have other duties unconnected with the govern- ment of the cliurch, so that this title cannot be a complete description of their office, as it is of the elder's office. Be- THE CONTKOVEESIES OF MY TIMES. 403 tliis as it may, the scriptures and our standards expressly teach that the ruling elder is strictly and properly a pres- byter, and, therefore, entitled to j)iii"ticipate in all acts in which any presbyter, as such, can bear a part. But elaborate efforts have been made to prove that the elder is not properly a presbyter, this term being re- stricted to preachers, to preachers as such, and to preach- ers exclusively. Dr. Thornwell well says that the mani- fest effect of this theory is to invalidate the arguments for the divine appointment of the office drawn from the nat- ural meaning of the title, the acknowledged constitution of the Jewish synagogue, and the plurality of elders con- fessedly ordained in the apostolic churches. "When these points are abandoned," says Dr. Thornwell, "we know of nothino' stronger or clearer that shall be left from which a scriptural warrant for our system can be deduced. To us they seem to have been consistent, who, when they had proved that the ruling elder was not a presbyter, M^ere prepared to abolish the office as a human contrivance, and an unnecessary appendage to the church." His reference here is to a somewhat celebrated article published, in Dr. Hodge's Princeton Review, shortly previous to the Gen- eral Assembly at Rochester, in 1860, which article was expressly abjured in that Assembly by Dr. McGill, and the responsibility for which Dr. Hodge himself after- wards made very significant and very earnest efforts to escape. Dr. Thornwell concludes his review of Dr. Breckin- ridge's sermon by showing that it is at once the doctrine of our standards and the word of God, that presbyter, as a title of office, means a ruler, and nothing more than a ruler. He enters into a very thorough examination of the question, ou what ground is the minister of the word styled a presbyter ? That this word, presbyter, is not synonymous with preacher, he demonstrates at length, in the use of both learning and logic. I cannot copy his demonstration, nor am I able to condense it, but I com- mend it to the scholarly inquirer's careful attention. In this attempt to write a history of the controversy about elders in the Presbyterian Church, before it Avas necessarily divided by the war of 1861-1865, I have 404 MY LIFE AND TIMES. chosen to regard Dr. Hodge as the leader and representa- tive of one side of that controversy. Drs. Breckinridge and Thornwell were leaders on the other side. As Dr. diaries Hodge was, perhaps, the greatest, so also he was the latest advocate of the theory which denies that ruling elders are true and proper presbyters. This Presbyterian controversy ended in the Northern church, so far as I know, with the Assembly at Rochester, in 1860. For in what then became the Southern church, ''kno^^^l officially as the Presbyterian Church in the United States," very little, if any, general controversy about the elder ever prevailed. Evidently dissatisfied with the exhibition he had made as a Presbyterian in the memorable debate on the l)i)ard question, in which he had led one side, Dr. Hodge subse- quently read to the Assembly at Rochester a carefully prepared statement of his Presbyterianism, as I have stated in the preceding pages. I here insert from that statement two paragraphs, seven and eight, which give his views of the elder question. They will set before the reader very comprehensively the ideas that prevailed amongst the party which he led. Here is paragraph num- ber seven : "7. That, as there is no class of officers above the pres- byters, no gifts higher than those which constitute a min- ister of the word, presbyters are the highest permanent officers of the church, and stand all on the same level ; all have the same office and the same prerogatives. This is the parity of the clergy. There are no apostles, no prophets, and, of course, no prelates." This paragraph is levelled against the claims of Epis- copal prelates. In other words, it states the doctrine of the parity of all ministers of the word, whom it calls the "clergy" — a word no Presbyterian ought ever to apply in this way. Speaking of these ministers of the word, and of them alone, ])r. Hodge says, "Presbyters are the high- est permanent officers of the church, and stand all on the same level ; all have the same office and the same pre- rogatives." Here he sets himself and his party against Paul, in 1 Timothy v. 17, where the apostle divides pres- byters into two classes, one of which only "rule well." THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 405 But the other, and the higher, class labor also in the word and doctrine. Here is paragraph nnmber eight : *'8. That the right of the people to take part in the gov- ernment of the church, is exercised through their repre- sentatives, the ruling elders. Here is the principle of representation, and here is the foundation of the peculiar character of our church courts. They are composed of two elements — a lay and clerical — ministers and elders. This representation of the people is, first, in the session, then in the presbytery, then in the synod, and then in the General Assembly. In all, the elders have the same right with the ministers to participate in the exercise of all the powers of the church — executive, legislative, and judicial. They are in our courts, not by courtesy, not by human ordinance, but of divine right." Thus, in paragraph number eight. Dr. Hodge asserts the right of the people to take part in the government of the church, through their representatives, the ruling elders. So then ''the clergy" are not representatives of the people, and the government of the church, it follows, is not all of it in the hands of the people through their representatives, but only a part of that government. In whose hands is the other part lodged ? Manifestly in the hands of "the clergy." Therefore, I denounced the use of that name as unpresbyterian and unprotestant. That name originated in the Romish idea that the Lord's "lot," that is, the Lord's cleros, or portion, was the priesthood. The}^ are the clergy, while the people are no part of the Lord's lot, but only sheep for the clergy to shear. These "clerg^'Tnen," if Dr. Hodge will give that name to min- isters of the word, are lords of the church, but they allow the people a part in this government, through their repre- sentatives, the ruling elders ! The ministers, it will be ob- served, are not representatives of the people, but the people's lords and masters! Here is Dr. Hodge's "prin- ciple of representation." Here is the "foundation of the peculiar character of our church courts !" There are two elements in these courts — one a lay element, the other a clerical. This certainly Avould make our church courts to be of a very peculiar character, but as certainly not 406 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. a scriptural character. The officers whom Christ gives to be riders in the church, the ehkn-s, presbyters, or bishops, are not a "lay element," neither are they a "clerical ele- ment." Both classes of the office of elder (otherwise called presbyter or bishop) are rulers, and they are equal as rulers. But one of these classes has the superadded office of teaching, and, as to this office, the two classes are not equal, and are not entitled to the same degree of honor, according to apostolic statement. Dr. Ilodge starts out, in paragraph number seven, with such a use of the w^ord presbyter as confines it to his "clergy." But he closes up paragraph number eight with a full and complete acknowledgment that elders have the same right with ministers in all the courts, and that his laymen are equally of divine right with his "clergymen." To what straits is the author of this statement reduced upon his plan of setting forth that great foundation prin- ciple of our Presbyterian system — the principle of repre- sentation ! He perceived that he must not deny that the true and real church of God consists of free men, made free by the Son. As such, it must be a free Christian commonwealth, governed, under its divine Head, by his people, but not directly. The people are to rule through their own chosen representatives. Accordingly, Congre- gationalism, Avhicli is the direct government of the people, is to be rejected. On the other hand, neither prelates or popes are ever chosen by the people. What now remains ? Only the middle ground, set forth in scripture: the church is to be governed, now as from the beginning, by ruling elders, every one of whom is elected as their rep- resentative by the people. But the author of this statement is not willing to ac- knowledge ruling elders as true and proper presbyters. He wants to make "presbyter" mean "preacher." And so he insists that the elder, though chosen by God's people to be their ruler, is only a layman and must not be called a presbyter. He wants to make out of his presbyter what he calls a "clergyman." He wants what he calls his clergy to rule the church. So there is left to Christ's free people only a part in the representative government, and those who exercise this part of the representative government THE CONTROVEKSIES OF MY TIMES. 407 must still continue to be only laymen. Thus our church must have a mixed representation — one half lajanen, the other half clergymen — but no ruling elders and no min- isters of the word. And, as paragraph eight says, that the people's part in the government of the church "is ex- ercised through their representatives, the ruling elders," it follows that only the lay element represents the people, so that the clerical element must have the higher duty of representing the clergy. xVnd yet, after all these incongruous things have been said. Dr. Hodge's statement about the ruling elder con- cludes with the remarkable acknowledgment that "^'the elders have the same right with the ministers to partici- pate in the exercise of all the powers of the church — ex- ecutive, legislative, and judicial. They are in our courts, not by courtesy, not bv human ordinance, but of divine right."" The reader will acknowledge that these final expres- sions of Dr. Hodge are very strong, although he makes the ruling elder only a layman. He will not let him be a true and proper presbyter, yet, by divine authority, he is entitled, as much as any minister, to participate in the ex- ercise of all church power — executive, legislative, and judicial ! Thus, as the result of the debate with his great antagonist, he is led to yield to the ruling elder all that has been claimed by the party he opposes. Had Dr. Hodge forgotten that, with all this church power in the ruling elder's hand, legislative, judicial, and executive, he has made him a necessary member of the presbytery's quorum, and given him the right to lay on hands in a minister's ordination ? It has been made very evident, as it seems to me, that the party represented by Dr. Hodge did not teach the old doctrine of genuine Presbyterianism. That doctrine, in its fullness, is as old as the 'New Testament epistles, while some of its parts can be traced backwards to the time of Moses, and even to the very beginning, for the church of God began to be at the very fall of Adam, while the ante- diluvian patriarchs may very justly be claimed to be elders that ruled. Next to the jSTew Testament epistles, we meet ruling elders, otherwise called presbyters and 408 MY LIFE AND TIMES. bishops, in the epistles of the three apostolic fathers, Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. Their history runs down through all the ages, as it is traced by Dr. Breckin- ridge, in his second great Baltimore speech, and by Dr. Thornwell, in his article entitled ''The Ruling Elder a Presbyter," to which the reader will find appended notes on this subject of special learning and value. (See Col- lected Writings, Vol. IV., pp. 115-131.) It is the doc- trine of Calvin, and all the Reformed churches ; of the Scotch church, as organized by Knox ; of the four great Scotch Presbyterian divines, who led the Westminster Assembly through its great work; of the Scotch and Scotch-Irish emigrants to this country, whom the Plan of Union vainly attempted to hybridize ; of old Dr. Samuel Miller, in his work on the ruling eldership. The new doctrine came into our church from the Con- gregationalists, who have given us many of their best men, and they naturally brought their own ideas of church gov- ernment with them, and engrafted them upon the churches of the North and Northwest. As for the emi- nent Dr. Hodge, he became especially a student of dog- matic theology, and made it very evident at Rochester that he had not studied church government. In fact, he seems to have held the doctrine of church government a matter of minor consideration — perhaps, naturally for one who devoted all his life to systematic theology. He manifested great surprise that Dr. Thornwell should have represented church order as much a matter of divine right as any other part of revelation. But, do we not know that order is, and from the very first has been, the guardian and protector of truth ? The very first revelations God made known to fallen man required to be thus protected, and Avere thus protected down till the time of Abraham. Accordingly, there was set apart one day in seven to be devoted to God's worship, and continually bloody sacri- fices were to be offered, and there were patriarchs to teach and maintain the truth. But there was no formally or- ganized church, separating the sons of God from the men of the world, and so revealed truth perished in all the earth. Abraham is then called, and the church formally set up in his solitary family. To its faithful care the THE CONTROVERSIES OF MY TIMES. 409 revealed oracles were committed until the Messiah should appear. In this Abrahamic church, patriarchs continued to rule, and there were ruling elders, even wdien that church was in Egyptian bondage. To Abraham was also given circmncision, an external sign and seal for assur- ance to him of righteousness. Israel had also synagogues, precursors of our Christian congregations, constituting social worship all over the land from Sabbath to Sabbath. "Moses of old time had in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day" (Acts XV. 21). They had "teaching priests," and "Levites to give the sense" of what was read. They had psalms for the singing of God's praises. The synagogue had its rulers from the beginning. It w^as they who called on Paul and Barnabas for the word of exhortation. By the help of such ordinances, the Abrahamic church, passing through the Mosaic economy, faithfully conserved reve- lation down to Christ. It was these by which the Lord fenced round his truth. This wall prevented the doctrine from being trampled down (Isaiah v. 2, 5). Christ comes to give his church its new and Christian form and name, and to entrust it with the care and promulgation of brighter, grander, and more important revelations of his truth. Did he furnish that church with no ordinances of divine right which were to be the bulwark and barrier of these truths ? The inspired apostles Christianized the synagogue, but added still higher and stronger defences of the truth than had been committed to it, Israel was under the bondage of rites and ceremonies. We have been set free by the Son, and we are free indeed. Office- bearers of a higher character are given to the Christian church. The services and worship of Israel were spirit- ual. Ours are intended and expected to be more spiritual. They kept the Jewish Sabbath. We enjoy the far more holy and blessed privilege of sanctifying the Lord's day, and of celebrating his resurrection, which is the pledge of ours. The Jews had the bloody sacrament of circum- cision. The Christian church has the baptism of water and the Spirit. They had the Passover, with its associa- tions of deliverance from the angel of death, as well as the power of Egypt. But we enjoy the Lord's supper, 410 MY LIFE AND TIMES. with its far more endearing remembrances, and its far more spiritual and heavenly hopes. Above all, they had set before them the straitening and compressing idea of their being God's peculiar people, closely shut in from intermarriage and all other kinds of intercommunion with the outside world. Indeed, they were required to kill off all the inhabitants that had preceded them in Canaan, lest they themselves should be corrupted, and also corrupt the truths committed to them. We are to have our hearts' deepest and tenderest s^mipathies aroused within us, and enthused by the most unselfish, heroic, and holiest aspirations through that last word of our Lord, "Go, make all men your brothers and my servants." Now, looking at all these Christian ordinances, and other effectual external influences, provided by the Lord to enable his church for her constant and watchful guar- dianship and dissemination of the glorious gospel com- mitted to her, is it not preposterous for any man to deny that order was revealed just as much as doctrine ? Do we not clearly perceive that our Saviour has taken particular care about the kinds of officers or agents he ordained for the adequate and exact transmission to succeeding gener- ations of the doctrines revealed by him to his church? This was a point to be specially guarded, and specially did our Lord guard it. We were not left, it is said, like children to be carried about by every wind of doctrine. The truths revealed to us were fenced against being over- run and trampled down by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Xo, we have pastors and teachers provided, through whose double ministration we and our doctrine should be protected, so that we should grow up into him in all things, who is the Head, even Christ. But Dr. Ilodge maintained that order cannot be of divine right, like doctrine; such matters are left to our discretion, because we live in the dispensation of the Spirit. But, if in this dispensation of ours we enjoy, more than in the former, the guidance of the Spirit, does it not seem that less must be left to our discretion, rather than more? Does not the canon of revealed scripture close with a most solemn warning to anv man who shall THE CO^^TKOVEK.SIES OF MY TIMES. 411 add to or take away from the things written % Perhaps the Christian church has never suffered as much from any other one thing as from the religious inventions of human wisdom, and the profane interferences of human discre- tion with the arrana^ements of God. CHAPTER XII.— Part 2. CONTEOVERSIES OF SciEJfCE WITH THE WoRD OF GOD. 1884-1891. SCIENCE is knowledge ; our English word answers to the old Greek word gnosis. The gnostics were the scientists of old, that is, the Txtiowing ones. The philos- ophers followed after the gnostics, but they chose a more modest title, for their name signifies only lovers of wisdom. It would seem that the controversy of science with the Bible dates many centuries back. Scripture teachings were opposed nineteen hundred years ago by the Saddu- cees, disciples of the learned Sadoc. We all remember the elaborate argument they brought against our Saviour's doctrine' of the Innnan spirit and the resurrection of man's body, and how that argument became thin air as soon as touched by him. So also the same opposition of science to the Bible arose in Athens when certain philos- ophers of the Epicureans and the Stoics encountered Paul, reckoning him a babbler because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. But in point of fact, did not the opposition of science, falsely so called, really begin very much further back ? Did not our first mother derive from a very bad quarter a doctrine she believed to be true knowledge, so that though God had said, "You shall surely die," she was led to believe and profess "we shall not surely die ?" The Rev. William Ellison Boggs, D. D., Chancellor of the University of Georgia, in an unpub- lished essay I am allowed to use freely, raises the ques- tion, how far the Presbyterian creed in the Westminster standards or the Bible itself have been modified by the discoveries of modern physical science. He answers : Not at all. Certain popular opinions closely connected with CONTROVEESIES OF SCIENCE. 413 the scriptures have been greatly modified, but these opinions are mere human theories not affecting the sub- stance of our divine religious belief. These popular no- tions relate to material things — the earth, sun, moon and stars, animals and plants — and the Bible is in nowise responsible for these theories. It teaches nothing at all in regard to them. Men gather these notions elsewhere and unconsciously read them into the Bible. Science, in sweeping away these figments leaves the word of God untouched and better comprehended, and the Chancellor insists that we therefore keep steadily in view the differ- ence between the word of God in the Bible, and its inter- pretations by uninspired men. All their opinions are liable to more or less of error ; but the sacred text itself as God gave it to men we hold to be infallibly true in every line and word. It may be added that all translations are of the nature of human interpretations, and when science in any of its branches can shed new light upon the true meaning of the sacred text, it deserves the thanks and not the reprobation of Christian readers. The Science of Zoology. Chancellor Boggs derives his first illustration from this science. The Hebrew term reem is translated unicorn in the English Bible, meaning a one-horned horse, an imaginary animal that never existed. It was long be- lieved to exist somewhere in the unexplored wilds of Asia. Probably, when the Septuagint translation was made, some two centuries before Christ, such an animal was believed in, and the Greek translators may have used the word "unicorn" to designate that belief. However, the science of zoology has since satisfied all intelligent men that no such horse-like animal could ever have existed. But there is one species of the rhinoceros which has one horn. But science has proved that the evidence at hand discourages the belief of the one-horned rhinoceros having been in Palestine within the human period. The descrip- tions of the unicorn in the Bible do not agree with the characteristics of the rhinoceros, but do exactly suit the •buffalo, which is plentiful even yet in Syria. And Smith's dictionary calls attention to the fact that our 414 MY LIFE AND TIMES. translation substitutes a plural "unicorns" for the singular "reem" in Deut. xxxiii. 17. "And his horns are like the horns of unicorns," as if each animal had but one horn, whereas the Hebrew reads, "His horns are like the horns of a ream!' showino; that one animal had two horns. And the marginal reading correctly says, "An unicorn." The Syrian buffalo in its wild state is evidently the creature referred to by the term unicorn. Thus the science of zoology has helped us to expurgate out of our revised Eng- lish Bible the error introduced by the old Greek transla- tion and followed by our King James' version. Chancellor Boggs proceeds to consider some of the scientific controversies which have marked the history of Christianity. The Geogeaphical Controversy. He begins with the controversy which grew out of the modern geography, although this controversy was finished before our Westminster standards were written. The scriptures have occasion to refer to the earth, not to teach the science of geography, but to set before men the wis- dom, power and goodness of God. To teach these relig- ious lessons the Bible uses the current expressions of those times. There was no other way, unless it should invent terms of its own, which would have been incomprehen- sible to the people. Thus the scriptures speak of "the four corners of the earth" as we now speak of the four cardinal points of the compass. But when men began to reason about the shape of the earth, this phrase on the lips of the people came to be associated with the scientific theory that the earth is a flat, four-cornered body. Then when people read the Bible, they read into it this theory. Among the seed-thoughts, however, bequeathed by the Greek mind to the world was the suggestion made by Plato and others that the earth is a globe. Disregarded for ages this idea reappeared from time to time in various places. But it was utterly repugnant to those who found their geography in the Bible. The controversy between the Greek suggestion of a spherical earth and the ecclesi- astical geography waxed hotter and hotter, until appeared a certain Cosmas, surnamed Indicopleustes, obviously be- CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 415 cause he had achieved the most unparalleled feat of mak- ing a voyage to India. Searching his Bible for proofs of the flat four-cornered theory, he came upon these words in Hebrews ix. 1, "A worldly sanctuary." In these words Cosmas finds scripture authority for his theory that the earth must be shaped like the Jewish sanctuary, which had four corners. Thus did Cosmas settle the question, and geography was accepted as revealed in the scriptures, so that to doubt any part of it was to be an infidel. This ecclesiastical geography held on its way for hun- dreds of years. When Columbus pleaded for ships and men that he might cross the Atlantic this ecclesiastical science of geography opposed him fiercely. If the earth were a globe there must be antipodes — men living oppo- site to our feet, so that they would be walking with their heads hanging down like flies crawling on the ceiling. It was only when the proofs grew to be overwhelming that very slowly the old error faded away, and ecclesiastics ceased to thunder from their pulpits the impiety of the new science of geography. Of course, the effect of this folly was to bring the church and the Bible into contempt with many intelligent persons. But when the storm had ceased the Bible was found intact and living, only certain spurious opinions that had been associated with the Bible wrongfully had been swept aAvay. Certain uninspired in- terpretations of scripture had been shown to be mistakes. But the word of God was unharmed. The Astronomical Controversy. Another controversy, says Chancellor Boggs, wdiich to many of the best men in the world seemed to threaten the very foundations of the faith, arose in connection with the new astronomy. The sacred writers frequently refer to the sun, moon and stars to set forth the wisdom, power and goodness of the Creator. The object is always a re- ligious one. Their object never is to teach us astronomy. They employ the only language which the men of early ages could comprehend — "the langiiage of the senses." We also in our day find it necessary to use this language still. The British Nautical Almanac, for example, which is thoroughly scientific, continues to speak of the sun ris- 41 G MY LIFE AND TIMES. in<; and setting", though, of course, the editors of that scientific treatise know perfectly well that the appearance and disappearance of the sun are due not to his motion, but to the turning of the earth on her axis once in twenty- four hours. But in the course of time men began to reason and to speculate about the relative motions and magnitudes of the earth, the moon, sun and stars. And these crude the- ories, based at first on the obvious appearances of the heavenly bodies, became rooted in the minds of God's people. Naturally enough, they would unconsciously read these crude theories into their Bibles. Failing to consider that the Bible is not an encyclopaedia of human knowledge, but a purely religious book, they tried to fix upon it the yoke of their imperfect science. Among the priceless treasures bequeathed by Greek thought to the modern world, however, were the hints of a better astronomy. Facts had been observed which seemed to show that the sun, not our earth, is the centre of our system of worlds, and his apparent motion is our real motion transferred to him. Instances of such transferred motion were known to the ancients, as when we sit in a boat as it rapidly recedes from the shore, we misjudge ap- pearances and seem to see the shore moving back from us. Our eyes do not deceive us, but we misjudge the sigiis wdiich they give us. Thus, step by step, those who watched the heavenly bodies began to detect those less obvious facts which reveal the truth that the sun stands still and we move. By and by these hints fell upon fruitful soil and brought forth fruit. A certain priest of the Roman church, Kopernik by name, residing on the borders of Poland, became a deeply interested observer of the heavens. All that we know of him shows that he led a godly life, free from scandal and given to prayer and charitable deeds. For a time he was professor of astronomy at Rome, and without rebuke w^as allowed to expound his view ' 'purely as a hypothesis." After awhile he became convinced that the hypothesis was true. But he also knew tliat Rome was a very unsafe place in which to say what he thought. Re- turning to his parish on the borders of Poland he medi- CONTEOVEESIES OF SCIENCE. 417 tated, prayed, and then wrote his book. With the utmost secrecy it was printed, and when lie lay upon his death- bed, assured by his physician that he had but a few hours to live, he sent for his immortal work, kissed it, prayed over it', and then sent it out no more as a "mere hypoth- esis," but as a demonstrated truth to revolutionize the con- ceptions of mankind as to the grandeur and glory of this mighty universe. Death had placed him beyond the reach of torture, but it did not save his memory from re- proach as an innovator and an enemy of the word of God. And yet upon his tombstone is one of the most beautiful of Christian epitaphs : ''I ask not, Lord, that grace which thou gavest to Peter and to Paul, but such mercy as thou didst show to the thief on the cross." Yet the Pope caused his book, demonstrating that the sun is the fixed centre around which the earth and sister planets revolve, to be inserted on the Index Frohihitorum LihroriDti, which can only be read at the risk of one's soul. Nor was the Roman church alone in her denunciation of the Copernican heresy. Luther railed at the true science after this fashion, "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. . . . This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astron- omy, but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth." The mild and gentle Melanchthon was not a whit behind his great leader in his indignant denunciations : ''Now it is a want of hon- esty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it." He then cites passages to show what he imagines to be the science taught in the Bible. Calvin, too, condemns all who say that the earth is not the centre around which •sun and stars revolve, citing the scripture and demanding, "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit ?" It is a sorrowful tale of poor Galileo. His telescope revealed to him the phases of Venus, and he saw the beau- tiful moons of Jupiter revolving around the mighty -planet, but his knowledge cost him dear. He was im- 41S MY LIFE AND TIMES. prisoned, dragged before the Inquisition and forced to» perjure himself in order to escape death. Ecclesiastical science continned to be taught in the nniversities of th& churches, Roman and Protestant. Men came through their knowledge of God's word to hate the church, and,, alas ! for them, to reject the Bible, which they were per- suaded by even ministers of the gospel held false views as to the earth and sun. But when the storm passed by, it was found entirely possible to hold to the Bible and the Copernican science. The Geological Controversy. This controversy. Chancellor Boggs, strictly speaking,, says, belongs to our outi age. Yet hints of the vast an- tiquity of the earth had been dropped by some clear- headed thinkers of ancient Greece. The suggestion was treated with scorn by such good men as Lactantius, called ''The Christian Cicero," and by that far greater man,. Augustine, of Hippo in North Africa, who anticipated Calvin in developing from the scriptures that very system of doctrine which is embodied in the Westminster Con- fession of Faith. Jerome, the great biblical scholar, ex- plained the twisted and broken strata of the earth as spe- cial expressions of God's wrath against sin. The eloquent and vehement Tertullian made a suggestion that was to bear fruit in future. The fossils, he thought, were all of them the effects of the Noachian deluge. Curious indeed were the speculations of the schoolmen respecting these fossils. Some said fossils are due to a "stone-making force in nature." Some considered them to possess powers of propagation like animals and plants. The Eeformers gave no encouragement to these over- curious inquiries into the processes of creation. Pfeiffer, eminent in the Lutheran church in Germany, in his Pan- sophia Mosaica, sought to beat back all such efforts to be wise beyond the letter of scripture. Sir ]\Iatthew Hale, the eminent English lawyer and judge, took the same ground against scientific investigation into matters of which scripture treats. Leonardo da Vinci in Italy and Palissy of France caught glimpses of the truth, but their- thoughts were smothered by the theologians under suchi COXTEOVEKSIES OF SCIENCE. 419^ high-sounding phrases as "lapidific force," "seminal air," "tumultuous movement of terrestrial exhalations." And finally appeared the happy thought, "sports of na- ture," intimating the wonderful idea that God had just chosen without any apparent design to put these curious shells, bones and tracks into the fossil beds just as they appear without having created any animal creatures to- whom they belonged. Thus the farce went on. BufFon^ the eminent French naturalist, stated clearly the princi- ples of geology. But he found, poor man, that he was pre- mature. The doctors of the Sorbonne took him in hand for attacking the authority of scripture and extorted from him a recantation through terror. Well done, thou Ro- man Church in France ! But Protestants in England and America were not behind her. Bishop Burnet, John Wes- ley, Adam Clarke, Richard Watson, William Cowper (the writer of sweet hymns), Moses Stuart of Andover, and a host of other excellent men, pooh-poohed and jeered and scolded and anathematized geology and geologists. The bones of a great fossil lizard being unearthed in Ger- many, out came the learned Scheuchzer's explanation,, which set scientists to laughing and cursing: Homo Dilu- vii Testis — "A Man [Lizard!] Witnessing to the Del- uge." But such pious explanations were offensive to Vol- taire, who in the interests of infidelity sought to efface the- testimony of fossils to the Xoachian deluge by the origi- nal hypothesis that the fossil fishes discovered in the Alps were the remains of the fish provided by pilgrims for their journeys ; the fossil shells, he said, were oyster shells cast away by travellers who had eaten their contents, while an immense fossil animal was a skeleton from the museum of some ancient philosopher ! But, little by little, truth has prevailed. Inch by inch, the mistaken friends of the Bible have been driven from the field. A human interpretation has perished, but the word of our God abideth forever. The Evolutiox Coin^troveesy. Properly speaking the question of evolution concerns the possibility of the development of a new species. The exact point at issue between the older science and the new 420 MY LIFE AINTD TIMES. was this : Are the species of plants and animals absolutely fixed and immutable, or are they liable to such variations that under favorable conditions new species may arise by the processes of natural birth from older species ? To this question the older science, as represented by Cuvier and Agassiz,made answer that species are absolutely fixed within certain lines of variation that can never be crossed. As they first appear, so they continue until they disappear forever. But the new science represented by Darwin, Wallace, Mivart, Huxley, Helmholtz, and other authori- ties, holds that species are mutable ; that the lines of ■separation are not immovable, but that under favorable conditions new species of plants and animals may arise by natural birth, the offspring being sufficiently unlike their parents to constitute the new species. Both the old science and the new seem, however, to agree that the evolution doctrine is still open to discus- sion, though only as an hypothesis, because, as they gen- erally seem to think, in point of fact, no instance of the origin of a new species has as yet fallen under human ob- servation. The evidence for evolution is circumstantial only. Here ends Chancellor Boggs's admirable introduction to my history of the evolution controversy. The new scientists, so far as I understand the matter, think they have discovered satisfactorily that the animal creation consisted in the beginning of a very few species with such a constitution of their nature as that from them other species might naturally arise occasionally. But here at the very beginning of these investigations we find theistic and atheistic evolutionists — the one class believ- ing in a personal God, the creator of all, the other class worshipping only what they call Xaturc. Both classes work peaceably and harmoniously together in their studies of natural science excepting in relation to that one point of difference. They both trace the successively aris- ing new species onwards and upwards until they come to man. Here the atheistic evolutionists find in mankind as much a simple product of evolution as any race of animals that preceded them. But the theistic evolutionists find in Adam the topmost glory of God's creating work upon the CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 421 earth. The atheistic evolutionists, of course, renounce God together with both his works and his word. But the theistic evolutionists are Christian men, believing every word of the Bible, and maintaining that the Creator's word and works, each rightly understood, cannot contra- dict each other. These will not shut their eyes to any light which science really and truly sets before them. They put God's revealed word in the Bible above any hu- man science. With them there is no error in the scrip- tures as God originally gave them, and so they maintain that science also, rightly understood, can tell no lies. These persons allow full liberty to scientific investigation, satisfied that its work is not yet fully accomplished. While the canon of scripture was closed when the inspired John finished the Apocalypse, "unto which scriptures nothing is at any time to be added, whether by new revela- tions of the Spirit or traditions of men," yet on the other hand, science, no doubt, has and shall have much more to say in its o^vn peculiar line, and intelligent believers in tlie Bible are waiting to hear and to judge. I have just said that, according to my understanding of the matter, the theistic evolutionists find in Adam the topmost glory of God's creating work upon the earth. They seem to me to understand that it was the Trinity who spake those words, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness, and let them have dominion over all our created work. So God created man in his o\vn image ; in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them." God is one, yet God reveals himself as existing in three persons holding communion with one another, which is an insoluble mystery humbly believed by us, yet impossible to be comprehended by the human mind. And so God creates man, but not Adam alone, for out of Adam's side he evolves an help meet for Adam, so that while Adam was created an individual, he was yet to be the head of a race, he was to constitute a new species, and then God blessed them, and said unto them, Be fruit- ful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it. I suppose that in a certain sense the history of theistic evolution may be said to end here. Rather let me say this hypothesis recognizes here a miraculous interruption 422 MY LIFE AND TIMES. of its course. Only the body of man, according to it, was evolved, that is, mediately created, while the Creator im- mediately unites to that body a rational and immortal •spirit, so that Adam arises, who is the glory of God's cre- ating work on the earth. Then, as the theistic evolution- ist reads in scripture, from the body of this immortal •creature thrown into a deep sleep one rib is taken, and out of it Eve is created a help meet for Adam, and they be- come the parents of the whole human race with all its varieties, for, as the Bible says, God has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. Here again begins evolution, but it is of a new sort, for no new species have ever been or ever will be evolved. With the creation of this human race the Cre- ator's work of evolving successive species is finished. He is still creating, but he evolves no new species of created animals. The theistic evolutionist quotes for this view that after creating man, ''God rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." He had gradually Ijrought into being every kind of animal and plant neces- -sary for man's comfort. This was the end he had kept in -view from the beginning, preparing for the highest, the human creature, a suitable habitation on this earth. The Psalmist says, "The heaven, even the heavens are the Lord's, but the earth hath he given to the children of men." Thus they constitute a royal race, having domin- ion over all things upon this earth, and wearing the very image and likeness of their Creator. But our Saviour tells us, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work." Thus God's work of creation widely considered has never ended. He has not rested from that work. It is he that created every animal including insect, fish, reptile, bird or beast that has ever come into being since the first six days' work, but he has created them mediately. Just so has he created mediately the body of every child of Adam that ever was born, but the spirit of every such child he has created immediately. Theistic evolution maintains that in respect of these last his work before and after the six days has ever been precisely alike, human bodies me- diately created, human spirits immediately. Here now come the opposers of theistic evolution alleg- CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 423 iug that this theory degrades Adam, head of the royal race. But it is answered, Adam degraded himself; and it might be asked if your pride cannot bow to the idea that the body of Adam the First had its origin among a race of innocent brutes, how can your faith glory in be- lieving that Adam the Second, the eternal Son of God, took to himself a body and dwelt in it for thirty-three years, and will dwell in it forever, that had its origin amongst a race of guilty sinners, while it was also nour- ished during all his life on earth by the flesh of beasts ? This general statement of the case as to the hypothesis of evolution would seem to show that unless the Bible is to be taken as a truly scientific book there could be little chance for a collision between it and the theistic evolution theory. In all the previous conflicts of physical science with the Bible, this mistake had been made by those who believed the scriptures. Evolution, theistically under- stood, is a purely secular question, not at all affecting re- ligion, which is all that the Bible is intended to teach. Its commission was not to teach zoology, nor geography, nor astronomy, nor geology, nor anything about what God may have done upon this globe before he gave it its pres- ent form and other arrangements, and finally placed it under man as its ruler and lord. It was revealed simply to teach what man, this final product of creation, '^is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man." But now a new^ mistake was added to the old one — the mistake of supposing that the study of God's works could evolve a contradiction of his word, or that physical science, properly interpreted, could tend to atheism. These are the points around which revolved our evolution controversy in the Southern Presbyterian Church. I must now take the reader back some twenty-five years to give some account of the origin of the Perkins profes- sorship, which has been involved in this controversy. It was in the fall of 1859 that the Synods of South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, in accordance with the conditions annexed to the generous endowment conferred on them by the Hon. Judge Perkins of ''The Oaks," near Colum- bus, Miss., added to the existing departments of instruc- tion in the Seminary, a chair to be entitled ''The Perkins 424 MY LIFE AND TIMES. Professorship of jSTatural Science in Connection with Kevelation; the design of which shall be to evince the harmony of science with the records of our faith, and to refute the objections of infidel naturalists." Well do I remember the extreme delight with which Dr. Thornwell welcomed this addition to our Seminary course of instruc- tion, how highly he appreciated the service done the Sem- inary at Columbia by the Rev. Dr. J. A. Lyon, the pastor of the venerable Judge Perkins, in assisting him to give the precise description of the object to which his munifi- cent endowment was to be applied. Dr. Thornwell did not share at all in the apprehensions expressed by Dr. Dabney, that the instructions of such a chair must have "a tendency towards naturalistic and anti-Christian opin- ions." He threw himself with the greatest ardor into as- sisting the endeavors of the Board of Directors to perfect the arrangements respecting this new chair. It fell first to the Synod of Georgia to choose the in- cumbent of this new chair, and they voted to place in it the Rev. James Woodrow, A. M., and in due time his election was confirmed by the other associated Synods of Alabama and South Carolina. Thus it came about that his inaugural was not delivered until November 22, 1861, at the succeeding meeting of the Synod of Georgia in the town of Marietta. It was delivered, however, not to the Synod, but to the Board of Directors of the Seminary, and for the purpose of obtaining their official counsel as to the discharge of his new duties. The Inaugural Address. The newly elected professor began his inaugural by expressing his "oppressive sense of responsibility and self distrust." Those feelings were increased by the fact that he was called to organize an entirely new department of instruction without a single similar chair in any theolog- ical school either in America or Europe to serve as a model," the chair of Xatural Science in the New (Theo- logical) College of the Free Church of Scotland, at Edin- burgh, ''forming no exception, because of the great differ- ence of design in the two chairs." The task assigned Pro- fessor Woodrow was all the more difficult on account of CONTKOVEESIES OF SCIENCE. 425 the various and even conflicting views which prevailed respecting its natnre, and the brief and somewhat indefi- nite instrnctions given him in the resolutions of the three synods. He was therefore glad of the ''opportunity to present his own views of what they had given him to do, and of the mode and spirit in which it ought to be done, so that, if he had not mistaken their design, he might go forward the more confidently ; but that if he had misap- prehended it, he might have the benefit of their counsels, and their instructions in changing, restricting, or extend- ing his plans." The Professor went on to say that the general de- sign was evident enough, and then to set forth three dif- ferent methods in which, as he supposed, it might be exe- cuted : ''First, the harmony may be evinced by showing that science proves the existence of God, and that he has at- tributes identical, as far as nature reveals them, with such as are ascribed to him in his word. ''Secondly, the harmony may be evinced by observing the analogy which subsists between nature and revelation in other respects than those which it belongs to natural theology to consider. "Thirdly, it may be the design of the professorship to evince the harmony only where it has been doubted or denied, or where opinions prevailing among scientific men either are or are supposed to be inconsistent with our sacred records ; in other words, to scrutinize the nature and the force of current and popular objections to the scriptures ; to meet them, and to set them aside by prov- ing that they spring either from science falsely so-called, or from incorrect interpretations of the words of the Holy Bible. This would involve a careful study of the funda- mental principles of the various branches of science from which the objections are drawn, and of their details car- ried far enough to enable one to judge correctly of the amount of truth in each objection. It would involve fur- ther the careful study of the principles of biblical inter- pretation as far as these relate to the mode in which the works of God are spoken of. The comparison of the re- sults obtained thus, if the processes have been properly 426 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. condiictcd, must inevitably evince entire harmony, or, at least, the entire absence of discord." The Professor said he regarded this last as the field on which most labor was to be expended; not that the first tAvo are to be wholly neglected. And if this be the correct view of the field set before him, it will be proper to look more into the details and state some of the points of supposed antagonism between science and the scrip- tures. 1. It is affirmed as explicit teaching of scripture that the whole material universe was brought out of absolute non-existence not quite six thousand years ago ; from the first beginning of creation till the first human being not quite six days elapsed. On the other hand it is held that the earth had been in existence during immense and im- measurable periods of time prior to the creation of the first living being that has left any trace on the earth. In- timately connected is the question relating to the intro- duction of death. Was there death before Adam's sin ? Was death, millions of ages previously, connected with the first sin of man ? One side denies ; others think scripture affirms that death was utterly unknown before the fall. Then there are opposite views respecting the Xoachian deluge. The unity of the human race is another point of an- tagonism. 2. Other branches of knowledge come under the con- sideration of this chair because they have some connection with natural science and its controversy with the Bible, or at least they are so regarded in the popular mind. Egypt and her monuments ; the antiquity of the Chinese and the Hindoos and other Eastern nations belong to this class. The established chronology of these nations, it is claimed, sets aside by irrefragable proofs that of the He- brew Scriptures as entirely worthless, the fabrication of some modern sciolist. While it is held by many students of the Bible that man was created less than six thousand years ago, in opposition to this we are told that man has been in existence not less than thirty thousand to one hun- dred thousand years, and that this has been proved by the COXTEOVEESIES OF SCIENCE. 427 archseological monuments and the authentic chronology of many nations, no less than by geology and palaeon- tology. The Professor went on to say that such were some of the questions showing the nature of all which it would be his duty to discuss before the Seminary classes. But what is the method to be pursued and in what spirit are these investigations to be carried on, and what results may be anticipated ? Evidently "it will be impossible to ascer- tain whether science and revelation agree or disagTee without an intimate acquaintance with both, as far as they are to be compared. To gain this, then, would seem to be the first thing to be done. While thus engaged the most untrammelled freedom of inquiry must be allowed ; and on both classes of subjects our decisions must be regulated by their proper evidence. In this preliminary investiga- tion we must neither be governed in our views of natural science by what we may have believed to be taught in the Bible; nor, on the other hand, must^we do violence to the words of the Bible under the influence of our belief in any supposed teachings of science. There must be the most unbiassed readiness to accept as truth whatever is proved. And yet, at the same time that we advance with the fullest liberty, it should be with the profoundest hu- mility and distrust of our own powers, joined with the deepest reverence for all that God makes known to us both in his works and in his word. Under the influence of such feelings, and proceeding with the firm conviction that truth, like its Author, is one, we can hardly fail to make progress in all attainable knowledge ; while we will be kept from the folly of believing that there are real inconsistencies, demonstrating error on one side or other, merely because we have not succeeded in comprehending the actual mode in Avhich the different sections of the truth are related to each other. Believing firmly and cor- dially that every part of the Bible is the very word of God, and that, therefore, every part of it is absolutely true in the sense in which it was the design of its real author, the Holy Spirit, that it should be understood, I also firmly believe that nothing will be found inconsistent with it in the established teachino-s of natural science as 428 MY LIFE AND TIMES. it is expounded bv its own votaries, and as its propositions are determined according to its o^^^l laws of investigation. Contradiction would necessarily imply a w^ant of truth somewhere ; but this, I think it may be made to appear by the most rigorous reasoning, does not exist. And in all cases where there are still unadjusted apparent diflfer- ences, which it must be admitted do exist, it can be shown that it is infinitely more probable that they result from imperfect understanding of the meaning of the word, or of the bearing of the scientific truth, or both, than from any real inconsistency. There are independent proposi- tions in intellectual and moral science, and even in the- ology, which are seemingly inconsistent and almost con- tradictory; and yet we never think of abandoning our belief in any of them, if each stands on a firm basis of its own. In no case do the imperfectly understood relations under consideration present more serious difficulties than these, and very seldom as serious. I further believe that there is no seeming discrepancy where the denial of the truth on either side would not involve vastly more per- plexing embarrassment than its reception on both. We have nothing to fear for the records of our faith from the freest examination in every direction. Let antiquity be searched ; let the created universe be scrutinized, as far as the human intellect so gifted by its Creator can reach ; though in the process we shall see many errors which have clung around our own minds, and which may have pre- vented our seeing the meaning of the divine word, still that word will derive continually new lustre from every advance in knowledge, and unbelievers will at each step be more and more without excuse for their irrational doubts." Of the concluding parts of the inaugural this may be considered the smn : the Professor believes and will teach that there are no errors in nature ; none in the Bible, the original text being given. He holds the absolute iner- rancy of the text in the book of nature, and the very same of the book of revelation, there being given the true in- terpretation of the former and the true interpretation of the latter. Thus provided we cannot have any conflict, for all truth, like its Author, is one. Therefore, if tliore CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 429 be any variance, there must be (1) false text or (2) false interpretation of nature or of scripture, one or both, or possibly only a false inference from some truth in nature or some truth in revelation. Adjust these — false text, or false interpretation, or false inference — and the supposed lack of harmony vanishes. This inaugural address most probably, although im- mediately published in the Southern Presbyterian Review of January, 1862, attracted very little attention. The war had just begun and both the Professor and his stu- dents were very soon in its service, as well as many of the ministers of our church. Had it been otherwise, had our ministers, elders, and other intelligent members of the church generally, become possessed of the Professor's views and duly considered them, possibly there had arisen no evolution controversy. There can be no falsehoods in the book of nature, said the Professor, and there can be none in the book of revelation. If only both be correctly understood, they cannot contradict each other, for they have one author. Both, however, present mysteries, many of them insoluble by us. Both deserve at our hands the most humble, reverent, patient and laborious investiga- tion, and "there must be allowed to any who would com- pare them together in the fear of God who gave them, un- trammelled freedom of inquiry. We must neither be governed in our views of natural science by what we may have understood to have been taught in the Bible ; nor, on the other hand, must we do violence to the words of the Bible under the influence of our acceptance of any sup- posed teachings of science. There must be the most un- biassed readiness to accept as truth whatever is unques- tionably proved." These views were just and true as put forth at Marietta, Ga., a quarter of a century ago, and would have been useful if well understood then and after- wards. They are just and true now. But in proportion as the views of Darwin and some other students of physical science like Darwin came to attract the attention of intelligent men amongst us, min- isters and elders who had not seen or read what had been «et forth by Dr. Woodrow in his inaugural began to in- quire into the bearing of the new physical science upon a 430 MY LIFE AND TIMES. number of doctrines which they had always supposed to be taught in the Bible. Moreover, as a professor at Colum- bia Theological Seminary had been set apart especially to make a study of physical science in its relations with rev- elation, it was very natural that there should arise a cu- riosity amongst our people to know what this professor would have to say about evolution, which was one of the questions which had recently arisen in the progress of scientific discovery. An open and straightforward de- mand for the publication of his views would have been perfectly legitimate and altogether suitable and becoming. It is just here that w^e reach the circumstances which gave rise to the evolution controversy in our church. I pro- ceed, therefore, to set them forth upon evidence which cannot be questioned. It is taken from the records of the Board of Directors. "At a meeting of the board on September 16 and 17, 1884, the following communication from Professor James Woodrow was read, and the board went into a committee of the whole to con- sider it: "Theological Seminary, Columbia, Septemier 16, 1884. "To the Board of Directors of the Theological Seminary of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia. "Gentlemeiv: In the autumn of 1882 your report to the Synods contained certain expressions touching evolution which led me to regard it as my duty to take the earliest possible opportunity to call your attention specially to my instructions on that subject in the class-room, although 1 had already frequently done so at the suc- cessive annual examinations. Accordingly, at your next meeting, in May, 1883, I laid before you a brief statement as to the views held and taught by me. Thereupon, after receiving this brief statement that evolution does not contradict the Sacred Scriptures, etc., you did me the honor to request me to give my views more fully on this topic, and to publish them in the Southern Presbyterian Review, since 'scepticism in the world is using alleged discoveries in science to impugn the word of God.' "I have acceded to your request, and beg leave now to submit to you a copy of the article which I have published in accordance with it. "Yours very respectfully, James Woodrow, "Perkins Professor, etc."^ CONTEOVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 431 Here is tlie paragraph which contained the expressions, in the board's report of 1882, alluded to in the above letter of the Professor : "We bring you tidings of great joy, for our beloved Seminary, after being closed for two years, was reopened on September 14th. This should be a subject of rejoicing to the whole church, for it is no unimportant matter in these days, when there is so much defec- tion, even in theological seminaries, that our Southern Zion should have another institution, manned by those who are able and apt to teach the Westminster standards, and who are too honest to secretly impugn the verbal inspiration of any part of the original Scriptures, or to covertly teach evolution and other insidious errors that under- mine the foundations of our precious faith." The Address on Evolution. Here, then, I introduce in as condensed a form as I can the address, just referred to, by the Perkins Professor. It was delivered on the 7th of May, 1884, to the Alumni Association and the Board of Directors. It was then pub- lished in the July number of the Southern Presbyterian Review of that year, and it will be found in full in Vol. XXXV. of said Review. After referring to the joint request of the two bodies named which had called for this address, the Professor chose before entering on the dis- cussion of the specific subject of evolution in itself, and in its relations to the sacred scriptures, to consider the relations subsisting between the teachings of the scrip- tures and the teachings of natural science generally. "Was it antecedently probable that there is room for either agreement or disagreement ? We do not speak of the harmony between mathematics and chemistry or be- tween zoology and astronomy, or the reconciliation of physics and metaphysics. Why ? Because the subject matter of each of these branches of knowledge is so dif- ferent from the rest. We may say that some assertion made by astronomy cannot be correct because it contra- dicts some known truth of mathematics or physics. But yet in such case we would not proceed to look for harmony or reconciliation ; we would confine ourselves to the task of removing the contradiction by seeking the error which caused it, and which it proved to exist ; for we know that, as truth is one, two contradictories cannot both be true. 432 MY LIFE AND TIMES. "^[ay it not be that we have here a representation of the probable relations between the Bible and science, that the contents are so entirely different that it is vain and misleading to be searching for harmoriie^^; and that we should confine our efforts to the examination of real or seeming contradictions which may emerge, and rest satis- fied without attempting to go further, when we have dis- covered that there is no contradiction if it was only seem- ing, or have pointed out the error that caused it if real ?" The Professor now tests what he has said by special cases which once caused trouble, but have now been satis- factorily disposed of. For example, the difficulty with astronomy growing out of Genesis i. 16; Joshua x. 13. He then quotes Calvin, "Moses does not speak with philo- sophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but relates those thino's which are everywhere observed, even by the un- cultivated. . . . He wdio would learn astronomy and other recondite arts let him go elsewhere." And he adds : "Calvin's belief in the geocentric system no more in- terfered with his confidence in the Bible than does our belief in the heliocentric system interfere with our con- fidence in the same sure word." The Professor's next illustration is from geography. For centuries geographers taught as science that which was claimed to be in perfect accord witli the Bible in pas- sages which speak of four winds, four corners, four quar- ters of the earth. So the Bible and science were thus found to confirm each other. At last it was discovered that neither the Bible nor natural phenomena set forth what had been supposed. The Bible taught nothing about the shape of the earth and the phenomena of the earth dis- proved its being a four-cornered, immovable plain. So in other cases. All this from the past proves that "the Bible does not teach science ; and to take its language in a scientific sense is grossly to pervert its meaning." Yet the Professor insists the language of the Bible in all these cases does "express the exact truth." When, for example, it says that the sun rises, sun sets, sun stood still in Gib- eon, it "conveys exactly the thought intended." If so, then there is no ground for saying that these expressions are "inaccurate." A phenomenal truth is as much a truth COXTKOVEKSIES OF SCIEXCE. 433 as is the so-called scientific explanation of it. Science deals almost exclusively with the "explanation" of phe- nomena, but the Bible speaks of natural phenomena for their own sake, and never for the sake of their explana- tion or their scientific relations to each other. These principles admitted, many difficulties at once disappear. For example, the Bible (Lev. xi. and Deut. xiv.) classes coney and hare as animals that chew the cud ; the bat amongst birds ; the locust, the beetle and the grasshopper as flying creeping things that go upon all four. If these are to be regarded as "scientific," then we have a "sad batch of blunders." But in the sense intended — to de- scribe phenomena addressed to the eye — they are "cor- rectly used." "We understand by 'chewing the cud' bringing back into the mouth, for the purpose of being chewed, food which had been previously swallowed ; but if those to whom the words in question were addressed understood by them that motion of the mouth which ac- companies chewing, then they would recognize by this motion the hare and the coney as rightly characterized. So with the bat : in a scientific sense it is not a bird ; it is a mammal ; hence if we are teaching natural history we would grievously err in making such a classification. But in describing flying things which do not creep, the bat was rightly placed where it is. Two years ago the Legis- lature of South Carolina enacted that *^it shall not be law- ful for any person ... to destroy any bird whose principal food is insects, . . . comprising all the va- rieties of birds represented by the several families of bats, whip-poor-wills . . . humming-birds, blue- birds,' etc. Does this law prove that the legislature did not know that the bat in a natural history sense is not a bird ? They were not undertaking to teach zoology ; they wished to point out the flying animals whose principal food is insects, and with all propriety and accuracy they did it. So 'going on all four' when used in reference to the motion of animals may fairly be taken as applying to the prone position of the animal which is common to the quadruped and the insect, and not at all to the number of feet. In this sense the phrase with perfect accuracy ap- plies to the horizontal position of the locust and other 434 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. insects; while the important natural history fact that the insect has six feet, and not four, is perfectly imma- terial." In all tliese cases, as the Professor points ont, no con- tradiction is to be found, hut we cannot say that there is any harmony here. Then he demands, ''Is it not point- edly suggested by these instances that any exposition of scri])ture which seems to show that natural science is taught, is thereby proved to be incorrect ? For this reason I am strongly inclined to disbelieve the popular interpre- tations of the first chapter of Genesis which find there a compendium of the science of geology." "So in all other cases of supposed contradiction of the Bible by science, I have found that the fair, honest application of such prin- ciples has caused the contradiction to disappear. I have found nothing in my study of the holy Bible and of nat- ural science that shakes my firm belief in the divine in- spiration of every word of that Bible, and in the conse^ quent absolute truth, the absolute inerrancy, of every ex- pression which it contains, from beginning to end. While there are not a few things which I confess myself wholly unable to understand, yet I have found nothing which- contradicts other known truth. It ought to be observed that this is a very different thing from saying that I have found everything in the sacred scriptures to be in har- mony with natural science. To reach this result it would be necessary to know the exact meaning of every part of the scriptures, and the exact amount of truth in each scientific proposition. But to show that in any case there is no contradiction, all that is needed is to show that a reasonable supposition of what the passage in question may mean does not contradict the proved truth in science. We do not need to show that our interpretation must be correct, but only that it 7nay be correct — that it is not reached by distortion or perversion, but by an honest ap- plication of admitted principles of exegesis. "It should be noted that the matters respecting Mdiicli there are supposed to be inconsistencies between the teach- ings of science and the Bible, are such as cannot possibly directly affect any moral or religious truth ; but that they derive their importance to the Christian believer solely CONTEOVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 435' from the bearing they may have on the truthfulness of the scriptures. In the name of Christianity, belief in the existence of people living on the other side of the earth has been denounced as absurd and heretical ; but how is any moral duty or any doctrine of religion affected by this belief ? unless, indeed, it may be from doubt it may- cast upon the truthfulness of the Bible. And with this exception, what difference can it make with regard to any relation between ourselves and our fello^^^nen or between ourselves and God and the Lord Jesus Christ whether the earth came into existence six thousand years ago or six thousand million years ago ; whether the earth is flat or round ; whether it is the centre of the universe or on its edge; whether there has been one creation or many; whether the jSToachian deluge covered a million or two hundred million square miles ; and last of all I may add, whether the species of organic beings now on the earth were created mediately or immediately ? "After these preliminary observations, I proceed to dis- cuss the main subject of this address. Before answering the question, what do you think of evolution ? I must ask, what do you mean by evolution ?■ "When thinking of the origin of anything, we may in- quire, did it come into existence just as it is ? or did it pass through a series of changes from a previous state in order to reach its present condition ? For example, if we- think of a tree, we can conceive of it as having come im- mediately into existence just as we see it; or we may conceive of it as having begun its existence as a minute cell in connection with a similar tree, and as having reached its present condition by passing through a series of changes, continually approaching and at length reach- ing the form before us. Or, thinking of the earth, we can conceive of it as having come into existence with its pres- ent complex character ; or we may conceive of it as having begun to exist in the simplest possible state, and as having reached its present condition by passing through a long series of stages, each derived from its predecessor. To- the second of these modes, we apply the term evolution. It is evidently equivalent to derivation ; or in the case of organic beings, to descent. 43G MY LIFE AND TIMES. "This definition or description of evolution does not in- clude any reference to the power by which the origination is effected ; it refers to the mode, and to the mode alone. So far as the definition is concerned, the immediate exist- ence might be attributed to God or to chance ; the derived existence to inherent uncreated law, or to an almighty personal Creator, acting according to laws of his own framing. It is important to consider this distinction carefully, for it is wholly inconsistent with much that is said and believed by both advocates and opponents of evo- lution. It is not unusual to represent creation and evolu- tion as mutually exclusive, as contradictory: creation, meaning the immediate calling out of non-existence by divine power ; evolution, derivation from previous forms or states by inherent, self-originated or eternal laws, in- dependent of all connection with divine personal power. Ilence, if this is correct, those Avho believe in creation are theists ; those who believe in evolution are atheists. But there is no propriety in thus mingling in the definition two things which are so completely different as the power that produces an effect, and the mode in which the effect is produced. "The definition now given, which seems to me the only one which can be given within the limits of natural science, necessarily excludes the possibility of the ques- tions whether the doctrine is theistic or atheistic, whether it is religious or irreligious, moral or immoral. It would be as plainly absurd to ask these questions as to inquire whether the doctrine is white or black, square or round, light or heavy. In this respect it is like every other hypothesis or theory in science. These are qualities which do not belong to such subjects. The only question that can rationally be put is. Is the doctrine true or false ? If this statement is correct — and it is almost if not quite self- evident — it should at once end all disputes, not only be- tween evolution and religion, but between natural science and religion universally. To prove that the universe, the earth, and the organic beings upon the earth had once been in a different condition from the present, and had gradually reached the state which we now see, could not •disprove or tend to disprove the existence of God or the CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 437 possession by him of a single attribute ever thought to be- long to him. How can our belief in this doctrine tend to weaken or destroy our belief that he is infinite, that he is eternal, that he is unchangeable in his being, or his wis- dom, or his power, or his holiness, or his justice, or his goodness, or his truth ? Or how can our rejection of the doctrine either strengthen or weaken our belief in him 'i Or how can either our acceptance or rejection of evolu- tion affect our love to God, or our recognition of our obli- gation to obey and serve him — carefully to keep all his commandments and ordinances ? ''True, when we go outside the sphere of natural science and inquire whence this universe, questions in- volving theism forthwith arise. Whether it came into existence immediately or mediately is not material; but what or who brought it into existence ? Did it spring from the fortuitous concurrence of eternally existing atoms? Are the matter and the forces which act upon it in certain definite ways eternal ; and is the universe, as we behold it, the result of their blind, unconscious operation ? Or, on the other hand, was the universe in all its orderly com- plexity brought into existence by the will of an eternal personal spiritual God, one who is omniscient, omni- present, omnipotent ? These questions, of course, involve the very foundations of religion and morality ; but they lie wholly outside of natural science; and are, I repeat, not in the least affected by the decision of that other ques- tion, did the universe come into its present condition im- mediately or mediately ; instantly, in a moment, or grad- ually, through a long series of intermediate stages ? They are not affected by, nor do they affect, the truth or false- hood of evolution. "But, admitting that the truth of theism is not involved in the question before us, it may fairly be asked, does not the doctrine of evolution contradict the teachings of the Bible ? This renders it necessary to inquire whether the Bible teaches anything whatever as to the mode in which the world and its inhabitants were brought into their present state ; and if so, what that teaching is. "It does not seem to be antecedently probable that there would be any specific teaching there on the subject. We 438 MY LIFE AND TIMES. ■have learned that 'the scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what dnty God re- quires of man' ; and that 'the whole counsel of God con- cerning all things necessary for his ovra glory, man's sal- vation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scrip- ture, or by good and necessary consequence may be de- duced from scripture.' But this does not include the principles of natural science in any of its branches. We have already seen that it certainly does not include the teaching of astronomy or of geography; it does not in- clude anatomy or physiology, zoology or botany — a scien- tilic statement of the structure, growth, and classification of animals and plants. Is it any more likely that it in- cludes an account of the limits of the variation which the kinds of plants and animals may undergo, or the circum- stances and conditions by which such variation may be affected ? We would indeed expect to find God's relation to the world and all its inhabitants set forth ; but he is equally the Creator and Preserver, however it may have pleased him, through his creating and preserving power, to have brought the universe into its present state. He is as really and truly your Creator, though you are the de- scendant of hundreds of ancestors, as he was of the first particle of matter which he called into being, or the first plant or animal, or the first angel in heaven. "So much at least seems clear — that whatever the Bible may say touching the mode of creation, is merely inciden- tal to its main design, and must be interpreted accord- ingly. Well may we repeat with Calvin, 'He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go else- where.' "It is further to be observed that whatever may be taught is contained in the first part of the oldest book in the world, in a dead language, with a very limited litera- ture ; that the record is extremely brief, compressing an account of the most stupendous events into the smallest compass, ^ow the more remote from the present is any event recorded in human language, the more completely any language deserves to be called dead, the more limited its contemporaneous literature, the briefer the record it- self, the more obscure must that record be — the more dif- CONTEOVEKSIES OF SCIENCE. 439 ficult it must be to ascertain its exact meaning, and espe- cially that part of its meaning which is merely incidental to its main design. As to the portions which bear on that design, the obscurity w^ill be illuminated by the light cast backw^ards from the later and fuller and clearer parts of the Bible. But on that with which we are now specially concerned no such light is likely to fall. ''To illustrate this point I may refer to other parts of this early record. In the account of the temptation of Eve we have a circumstantial and apparently very plain description of the being that tempted her. It was a ser- pent ; and we read that the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field. Further, it was a beast which was to go upon its belly, and whose head could be bruised. Surely, it might be said, it is perfectly plain that the record should cause us to believe that it was a mere beast of the field, a mere serpent, that tempted Eve. But to narrate the fall of man is not simply incidental to the de- sign of the Bible ; on the contrary, its chief design may be said to be to record that fall and to show how man may recover from it. Hence from the later parts of the Bible we learn that the tempter was no beast of the field, as •seems to be so clearly stated ; but it was 'the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, even Satan,' whatever may have been the guise in which he appeared to our first mother. "Then from the sentence pronounced upon the serpent, 'I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and be- tween thy seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel' ; from this it would seem to be clear that what we are here taught, and all that we are here taught, is that the woman's son was to crush the head of the beast, whilst his own heel would be bruised ; w^hereas we learn from books which come after, that this sentence really contains the germ of the entire plan of salvation ; and that the woman's son who was to bruise the serpent's head at such cost to himself is Jesus the Saviour, who on Calvary through his death destroyed 'him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.' ISTow since in these cases, where the meaning seems to be so un- mistakably clear, and where the subject matter belongs to 440 MY LIFE AND TIMES. the main design of the book, and yet where the real mean- ing is so entirely different, as we learn from the later scriptures, how cautious we should be not to feel too con- fident that we have certainly reached the true meaning in cases where the subject matter is merely incidental, and where no light falls back from the later scriptures to guide us aright ! "The actual examination of the sacred record seems to me to show that the obscurity exists which might have been reasonably anticipated. It is clear that God is there represented as doing whatever is done. But whether in this record the limitless universe to the remotest star or nebula is spoken of, or only some portion of it, and if the latter, what portion, I cannot tell. And if there is an ac- count of the methods according to which God proceeded in his creative work, I cannot perceive it. It is said that God created ; but, so far as I can see, it is not said how he created. We are told nothing that contradicts the sup- position, for example, that in creating our earth and the solar system of which it forms a part, he brought the whole into existence very much in the condition in which we now see the several parts ; or, on the other hand, that he proceeded by the steps indicated in what is called the nebular hypothesis. Just as the contrary beliefs of Cal- vin and ourselves touching the centre of the solar system fail to contradict a single word in the Bible, so the con- trary beliefs of those who accept and those who reject the nebular hvpothesis fail to contradict a single word of the Bible. "I regard the same statements as true when made re- specting the origin of the almost numberless species of organic beings which noM'^ exist and which have existed in the past. In the Bible I find nothing that contradicts the belief that God immediately brought into existence each form independently ; or that contradicts the contrary be- lief that, having originated one or a few forms, he caused all the others to spring from these in accordance with laws which he ordained and makes operative. "If that which is perhaps the most commonly received interpretation of the biblical record of creation is correct, then it is certain that the Bible implicitly yet distinctly CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 441 teaches the doctrine of evolution. According to this in- terpretation, the record contains an account of the first and only origination of plants and animals, and all that exist now or that have existed from the beginning are their descendants. If, then, we have the means of ascer- taining the characteristics of these ancestors of existing kinds," we can learn whether they were identical with their descendants or not. If the early forms were the same as the present, then the hypothesis of evolution or descent with modification is not true ; but if they were different, then it is true. Xow not indeed the very ear- liest, but great numbers of the earlier forms of animals and plants have been preserved to the present day buried in the earth, so that we can see for ourselves what they were. An examination of these remains makes it abso- lutely certain that none of the species now existing are the same as the earlier, but that these were wholly unlike those now living; and that there have been constant changes in progress from the remote ages of the past, the effect of which has been by degrees to bring the unlike forms of a distant antiquity into likeness with those which are now on the earth. Hence, all who believe that the creation described in the Bible was the origination of the ancestors of the organic forms that have since existed, can- not help believing in the hypothesis of evolution. This is so obvious that it is surprising that it has been so generally overlooked. "There seems to be no way of avoiding this conclusion, except by assuming that the so-called remains of animals and plants buried in the earth are not really remains of being that were once alive, but that God created them just as we find them. But this assumption must be rejected because it is inconsistent with a belief in God as a God of truth. It is impossible to believe that a God of truth would create corpses or skeletons or drift-wood or stumps. ''If the interpretation which I have spoken of as per- haps most commonly received is rejected, then it may be thought that the Bible speaks only of the first origination of oi'S'anic being's millions of vears asi-o, but savs nothino; of the origin of the ancestors of those now on the earth ; but that it may be supposed that when one creation be- 442 ISIY LIFE AND TIMES. came extinct, there were other successive immediate in- dependent creations down to the beginning; of the present era. There may bo nothing in the Bible contradicting this supposition, but certainly there is nothing there fa- voring it. And if it is rejected in favor of evolution, it is not an interpretation of scripture that is rejected, but something that confessedly lies outside of it. "Or, in the next place, the interpretation may be adopted that the narrative in the Bible relates exclusively to the origination of existing forms, and that it is wholly silent respecting those of which we find the buried re- mains. It need hardly be said that on this interpretation, as in the last case, there is nothing in the silence of the scriptures that either suggests or forbids belief in evolu- tion as regards all the creations preceding the last. For anything that appears to the contrary, the multitudes of successively different forms belonging to series unmen- tioned in scripture may have sprung from a common source in accordance with the doctrine of descent with modification. "When we reach the account of the origin of man, we find it more detailed. In the first narrative there is noth- ing that suggests the mode of creating any more than in the case of the earth, or the plants and animals. But in the second we are told that 'the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.' Here seems to be a definite statement utterly inconsistent with the belief that man, either in body or soul, is the descend- ant of other organized beings. At first sight the state- ment that 'man was formed of the dust of the ground,' ■seems to point out with unmistakable clearness the exact nature of the material of which man's body was made. But further examination does not strengthen this view. For remembering the principles and facts already stated, and seeking to ascertain the meaning of 'dust of the ground' by examining how the same words are employed elsewhere in the narrative, the sharp definiteness which seemed at first to be so plainly visible somewhat disap- ]"»oars. For example, we are told in one place that the waters were commanded to bring forth the moving crea- CONTKOVEKSIES OF SCIENCE. 443 ture that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth ; and the command was obeyed. And yet in another place w^e are told that out of the ground the Lord God formed €very beast of the field and every fowl of the air. TTow as both these statements are triie, it is evident that there For example, who elects a professor ? Not the Synod, but the board. After the election by the board, the Synod can approve or disapi)rove. The veto belongs to the Synod. But if the Synod, for any cause, does not speak, the elec- tion becomes valid without any act on its part. Has the professor no rights ? Is he to be stopped by resolutions of the Synod ? The board has the right to remove a professor when he is found unfaithful or incompetent (see Art. 11^ page 5). The board may suspend him until fully 'tried' (ibid), and report their action to the synods. Professor "Woodrow has rights ; sacred rights. May God grant that there will be Presbyterians found still who will give a man his rights. The only method of proceeding legally in the board was for the objectors to table charges of 'un- faithfuhiess' or 'incompetency.' Then there would have been a fair trial with full discussion, and the Synod would have had the review of a case. The board has the right to try and remove a professor, and that excludes the right of the Synod to do so. The Synod cannot do what by the Constitution is expressly assigned to another body — 'ex- pressio unius est exclusio alterius/ This is the univer- sally recognized rule of law. Are you going to raise a hurrah ! and try to sweep a man out of his place by clamor ? Is that Presbyterianism ? No ! A man is not condemned till tried. So speaks this Constitution. The Synod, by adopting the minority report, would travel far out of that path which is defined in the law. The sup- posed right of the Synod to say to a professor, 'Your views do not contradict the Bible as interpreted in these stand- ards, but they do not suit us,' is the same as saying, 'Or- thodoxy is my doxy and heterodoxy is your doxy.' [Laughter.] The only way to stop a professor is to re- move him from office either for 'unfaithfulness' or 'in- competency' after a fair trial. These are the legal limits. The pledge or vow given by each professor wlien inaugu- rated binds him not to contradict the doctrines of the standards of the church. The giving of this limit is the exclusion of all other tests. His teaching is limited only by that formula. I challenge the riglit of the Synod to reverse the action of the board and pr(»hil)it hi>^ toaehing. CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 473 It is asked, 'Do not these synods control the Seminary V I reply by asking, does not the Constitution of the United States ffive some control in and over the States to the Federal government ? Bnt is not our bitter complaint jnst this that the majority have overridden these limits and then said, 'We have the power to work our pleasure !' So you of the Synod can do it by trampling under your feet this Constitution just as they suspend and disregard the provisions of the Constitution for us by force of num- bers. You can, but I do not believe you will, do such in- justice. Moderator, to the law we must go. "T trust the Synod will excuse a few personal allusions. There is a question in church polity as to the exact rela- tions of church and state. Being brought up in our con- ference, we, the professors, were found to differ among ourselves. Let me now be told what are the 'accepted in- terpretations V I do not know. As to the will, the views of the professor of Theology are contrary to those of Ed- wards, which are generally accepted by the ministry. ThornwelFs latest opinions were also opposed to Edwards, but the professor who came in between Dr. Thornwell and Dr. Girardeau was, I believe, with Edwards. N'ow, shall Synod prevent the present professor of Theology from teaching what is opposed to the Edwardean or 'received' view ? There are differences among us as to the deacon's functions. Of these we have at least three views in the faculty. Which of these is the 'accepted interpretation' ? As to the call to the ministry, we have different opinions Avhen that comes up for discussion. Each professor gives his own view, and leaves the students to select between them. ''This Synod must not evade the question : Is a professor forbidden to vary from received interpretations of the church ? 'T criticise the whole proceeding. It has been 'hush,' 'I am afraid of evolution.' 'I would not say it contra- dicts the Bible ;' but 'silence ! silence !' 'Keep silence, O earth!' If the earth would keep silence and obey the Synod, very well. But the earth will not keep silence. ''Look at the position in which you place your profes- sor. These young men hear about this terrible evolution. 474 AIY LIP'E AND TIMES. They occasionally see a book or magazine. They come to the Seminary in great doubt, having heard of evolution in college. This Synod, sitting as a scientific association, undertakes, in the far sweep of its knowledge, to say, 'Though every scientific man believes it, yet we say it is an ^mVerified hypothesis.' ■ 'Hear, O earth,' but she will not keep silence. There was a time when a majority of the Christian world, great as that of the Synods of Ken- tucky and Nashville, believed that everything was made in six natural days of twenty-four hours each. 'The geo- logical hypothesis is not based on facts,' they said. But there were facts, and many of them too. Geologists 'rooted down' and found out that all was not made in six ordinary days. If the Synod of South Carolina had had such geologists before them, they would perhaps have been tempted to shut their mouths. That was an 'accepted interpretation.' Perhaps the mend^ers of the church to- day mostly hold to the 'accepted interpretation' of that day, and, on the principle of the minority, would sweep the ministry out of existence for not believing it. 'Away with the geologist ! Let him go into that bottomless abyss that he has been rooting at,' was the cry. Xow the church has to cry in the presence of this impertinent science, 'Peccavi!' Then consider the deluge controversy. The 'accepted interpretation' required a universal deluge. There was no apparent need of one, since the only purpose was to destroy sinful man, not yet spread abroad over all the globe. But the language ! the language demanded universality. "Recall the controversy on the 'vowel points' in He- brew. There was a dreadful controversy over their in- spiration. The Buxtorfs, with all their learning, erred. But at last the truth ]u-evailed : they were devised by the iminspired scribes. The accepted view was wrong. "Recall the 'purist controversy.' 'The N^ew Testa- ment Greek,' so men said, 'must be pure — purer than that of Demosthenes or Plato.' This view was 'accepted' by most, but it came to naught. Is the church of God never to learn anything bv experience ? Is she ever to hurl her- self against things in which she has no interest ? The eyes of the world are upon you. The ears of science are listen- COKTEOVEESIES OF SCIEIn'CE. 475 ing. Are we to yield to clamor ? Outside clamor ? The very loudness of the clamor calls upon us to act like Pres- byterians— to stick to the law! Do not, by any act of jours, by implication pass condemnation upon a man without giving him a trial. I beg you, not because I am a personal friend of Dr. Woodrow, but because I am here as a presbyter. I beg you because of your plighted faith to this Constitution. Yield not to outside pressure ; yield not to fear of results, but stick to the law. If you jump to a conclusion virtually condemning Dr. Woodrow, from which you must retreat, then this noble Seminary, so dear to us, will trail the blue banner of her Presbyterianism, which has long floated over her, in the presence of science. And we will strike our standard, leave our guns, and con- fess that we are whipped on our o^\^l ground." Professor H. E. Shepherd: "Is evolution in its re- stricted sense, as believed by Dr. Woodrow, taught as a dogma and impressed on the minds of students, or is it simply described in its history and characteristics ? That is a very important question. "Whatever may be the result of this controversy, I hope that no injury may be done to the teaching of science in the Seminary. If there is anything that should be most desired it is a thorough equipment in this very direc- tion, in view of the immense activity and energy of other Woodrow is not a private person ; he does not speak on his own responsibility. With authority of the chijrch be^ hind him, he reviews before his classes the arguments for and against evolution, and declares that he believes it to be probably true. Is that not teaching it and inculcating it ? The chair calls for the teaching of the connection be- tween scripture and science. The majority report pro- claims that there is no connection — that the doctrine of evolution is entirely extra-scriptural. There can be no connection between parallel lines. "I am not the author of the minority report.* Young as I am, I would not attempt to guide the action of a body like Synod. I simply drew up the minority report- Blackstone defines heresy as a denial of some essential truth or doctrine of Christianity, publicly avowed and obstinately maintained." Rev. Dr. Hemphill inquired whether the speaker meant to say that if Synod adopted the minority report, it would adopt Webster's or Blackstone's definition of heresy. Mr. Webb said he intended that Synod should adopt a correct definition. Dr. Hemphill said there was a Presbyterian definition of heresy. Mr. Webb continued : "1 would never vote for any action that would accuse Dr. Woodrow of heresy. There * Dr. Girardeau stated that, at Mr. Webb's request, he had giveo him the notes to be used as the basis of the minority report. COXTROYERSIES OF SCIENCE. 479 is no purpose to charge him with heresy. If every man who differs with the Confession of Faith is to be accused of heresy, a large proportion of the church membership wouhl be under ban. The riiinority denies that Dr. Wood- row is guilty of heresy or infidelity. They charge that he teaches doctrines contradictory of the Bible as interpreted by Presbyterian standards and received by Presbyterians. The doctrine of evolution is not extra-scriptural ; it is contra-scriptural. The word 'dust' is used in the Bible one hundred and seven times. In ninety-eight of them it is used as inorganic dust. The passage 'who can count the dust of Jacob' might be regarded as referring to or- ganic beino's, but examination shows that it refers en- tirely to the immense numbers of his descendants. In two other instances it is used to express humility and lowliness. In three others it is used as describing the food of serpents, and is therefore regarded as meaning flesh and blood. But distinguished commentators have decided that it can be construed as meaning that the ser- pent eats dust upon his food. I believe, however, that the expression 'dust' is a figurative one, applying to the ex- treme humbling of the devil typified by the serpent. Of the remaining three instances in which 'dust' occurs, two are in Genesis and one in Ecclesiastes, and all obviously refer to inorganic materials. In one hundred and four cases 'dust' is clearly meant to express inorganic material, and in the other three the probability is the same way. Applying the ordinary rules of interpretation, the pre- ponderance of use and general accejitation, the conclusion is inevitable that 'dust' in the Bible means inorganic material, and that Adam was literally made of inorganic dust, instead of being evolved from the loins of a brute. "Every figure of speech must have some basis of re- ality. Dr. Woodrow in his address has alluded to dust as probably a figure of speech. According to that, the real meaning of 'dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return' is 'of organic matter art thou composed, and into organio matter thou shalt be decomposed.' The grave tells us how we go, and proves to us that we must return to inorganic dust. I contend that Dr. Woodrow is not guilty of heresy, but that he has tauffht doctrine relativelv contradictorv 480 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. of scripture — contradictory of the scripture received by the Presbyterian Church. The minority report steers clear of the charge of heresy and the allegation of infi- delity. It directs the prohibition of further teaching of doctrines believed to be contradictory of the received in- terpretation of God's word." Mr. Webb closed with a passionate exhortation to synod not to sacrifice the peace and welfare of the church and the life of the Seminary for the sake of an unverified hy- pothesis, a shadowy, uncertain supposition. I proceed now to report the part taken in this debate by Eev. John L. Girardeau, D. D. None of the speeches on that occasion were very accurately reported. This applies specially to the one delivered by my old friend. He sub- sequently published a pamphlet of thirty-five pages, en- titled ''The Substance of Two Speeches on the Teaching of Evolution in Columbia Theological Seminary. De- livered in the Synod of South Carolina at Greenville, S. C, October, 1884." In his introduction to this pam- phlet he states: "The greater part of the ensuing re- marks is a reproduction vcrhatim of what was spoken from full notes on the floor of the Synod. The same verbal accuracy is not vouched for in regard to the whole of them." He proceeds to aver that there is no question be- fore this Synod of heresy on Dr. Woodrow's part, and if there were such a charge, he, as one member of the Synod, would join in the vindication of the Professor. He re- peated, in the second place, that in his opinion there was no ground on which to base such a charge against Dr. Woodrow. He goes on at considerable length to declare his confidence in the sincerity of Dr. Woodrow's belief in the plenary inspiration of the scriptures, and in all the vital doctrines of the Calvinistic system. On page 6, after all the introductory matter, Dr. Gir- ardeau expresses himself thus: "The question which is before the Synod is whether it will approve or disapprove the action of the Board of Directors, and, by implication, the inculcation of Dr. Woodrow's hypothesis of evolution in the Theological Seininary." To the first portion of this double question, he then devotes some eight or nine pages of his pamphlet. And CONTEOVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 481 on page 15, T find him saying, "The question which in my judgment is really before the Synod is in regard to the relation between Dr. Woodrow's hypothesis and the Bible as our church interprets it." I shall, therefore, pass over altogether, as not necessary to this history of the evolution controversy, all that he says on the first branch of the question, and I proceed to report his speech as it related only to the second branch. Dr. Girardeau said that in his judgment the question really before the Synod was in regard to the relation be- tween Dr. Woodrow's hypothesis and the Bible as our church interprets it, between this scientific view and our Bible, the Bible as it reads to us. This is our court of last resort, our ultimate standard of judgment ; and, from the nature of the case, must be. This being, as he appre- hended it, the state of the question, the first proposition which he would lay down for the Synod's consideration was : ''A scientific hypothesis wdiich has not been proved so as to have become an established theory or law, and which is contrary to our church's interpretation of the Bible, and to her prevailing and recognized views, ought not to be inculcated and maintained in our theological seminaries." He argued this from the nature and design of a theo- logical school. It is established and supported by the church. It is designed to teach what the church holds and l>elieves. For it to teach the contrary is to violate its very nature and end. And in the event of a view opposed to her own being supported by great talents and acquire- ments, and as in the case of scientific hypotheses, beyond ■effective resistance by the other chairs, she actually makes arrangements for the overthrow of her own views. The speaker proceeds to argue that neither Hebrew and Greek nor rhetoric, metaphysics, moral philosophy nor science, are to be taught there for their own sakes, but always and only as a means to an end, and that end was to facilitate the mastery of theology, and to vindicate the scriptures against the assaults of infidelity. And fur- ther, our Seminary was not designed simply to teach the -scriptures. Every theological seminary of every evangel- ical church is designed to do this. There must be some- 482 MY LIFE AXD TIDIES. thing distinctive to mark off ours from theirs, some spe- cific difference; what is it? This: onrs was designed tO' teach the scriptnres as interpreted hy the Presbyterian church, and especially by the Soutliea-n Presbyterian Church. This is too plain to need argument. An unproved hypothesis ought not to be taught in a theological seminary, not only because of the reasons al- ready urged, but because such an hypothesis may never be verified. In that event the church would be convicted of having taught scientific error. She would be obliged to retreat from her position and confess her sin. What a wretched course it would be for the church to surrender her views at the demand of unverified hypotheses ! Who would confide in her stability ? Who would not pronounce her fickle? The speaker went on to instance cases in which the church had held on to her original interpretation of scrip- ture in the face of opposing scientific hypotheses, and Avas subsequently acknowledged to be right by the weight of scientific evidence itself. One was the hypothesis of the specific diversity of the human race, as opposed to the church's doctrine of the unity of the race ; another was the hypothesis of the extreme antiquity of man as opposed to the church's view of the biblical chronology; another was the hypothesis of spontaneous generation ; but Hux- ley himself had declared that Pasteur gave it its finishing stroke. The church too has held her ground against the hypothesis of the original diversity of languages in favor of her doctrine of their original unity. The application is plain to the hypothesis now under consideration. It cannot be left to scientific men to determine what is or is not to be taught in our theological seminaries, nor can it be left to any professor. Who are to determine this all- important question ? Proximately the Board of Direc- tors, but only proximately ; ultimately the associated synods. They have the power to make the constitution of the seminary, and therefore to say what is or is not to be taught in its chairs. The speaker next ytroceeded to insist that admitting the other professors in the Seminary did discuss before their students unverified hypotheses, yet none of these were- CONTKOVEESIES OF SCIENCE. -iSS^ siTch as the church condemned. The church had con- demned the inculcation of Dr. Woodrow's unverified hy- pothesis. Hence it was wrong for it to be inculcated. He admitted that so long as Dr. Woodrow taught evolution expositorily without expressing any opinion in its favor, he taught, as the speaker conceived, nothing contradic- tory to the Bible. But now when he announces that he holds it as probably true, under limitations, the church says, "Your view contradicts my interpretation of the- Bible; and as my interpretation of the Bible is the Bible to me, your view contradicts the Bible." The relation, then, between his hypothesis and the Bible is, in the church's judgment, not that simply of non-contradiction. The analogy which is alleged to exist between Dr. Wood- row's hypothesis of evolution and the matters specified as taught by the professors of Biblical Literature, Churcb History and Rhetoric, utterly breaks down. "Yet," said the speaker, "it may be contended that the- professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology positively inculcates metaphysical hypotheses which are extra- scriptural, and that therefore the analogy does hold be- tween his case and that of the Perkins Professor. He ad- mitted that he taught hypotheses which are not to be- found stated in scientific form in the scriptures. Between them and the statements of the Bible there is not the har- mony of identity. But the instructor believed that be- tween them and the Bible there is the harmony of non- contradiction. Further than this, it is believed that be- tween them and the church's interpretation of the Bible there is harmony, the harmony of non-contradictory state- ments. To speak in plain language, it is believed that they are perfectly consistent and harmonious with the- Bible as the church understands and teaches it. And fur- ther still, he would say that they are inculcated with the- end in view, at least partly and chiefly, of evincing the- harmony between them and our church's interpretation of the Bible. The connection between metaphysical science and revelation is so taught as to make the former a defender of the latter, its vindicator against the assaults of a sceptical philosophy. In a word, metaphysical teach- ings are so used as not to make it necessary to adjust the- 484 MY LIFE AND TIMES. church's interpretation of the Bible to them, but bv them to ehicidate and strengthen that interpretation. '^I^ow, natural science may be employed in the same way, and the analogy would then hold between the two ■chairs. The true question is, whether the actual attitude of the two chairs is alike ; whether the real existing pos- ture of the Perkins chair towards the Bible as interpreted by our church is the real existing posture of the metaphys- ical chair towards the same standard. That being the true state of the question, no unprejudiced mind can hes- itate as to the decision. In the respects mentioned, they are not alike — the analogy practically fails." The speaker next referred to its having been argued that not only the seminary professors diifered from each ■other, but that there are parties in our church differing ■on certain points as much from each other as Dr. Wood- row and his opponents, and yet the church tolerates these differences, and these different views are publicly and freely set forth. These differences relate, for example, to predestination and the will, to the imputation of Adam's guilt, to the call to the ministry, etc. In reference to these matters, it is argued, all are substantially agreed, though, upon the question of mode, discrepancies occur. So, in this pairticular case before us, all are agreed in re- gard to the fact of creation, but the difference arises with reference to the mode, and that ought to be permissible as it is in the other cases. "This argument," said Dr. Girardeau, "has not even the air of plausibility. One or two plain considerations will effectually destroy the analogy upon which it is "based, and so subvert it along with its foundation. "First, the parties who differ upon the questions in- stanced— predestination, the will, imputation, the call to the ministry, etc. — profess to derive the proofs of their respective positions from the scriptures ; both sides ap- peal to them for support. But those who maintain the hypothesis of evolution profess to derive the reasons in its favor from science, while the op])onents of evolution get their argument from the Bible as well as from science. The difference between the cases is a mighty one. There is no analoffv between them. CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 485 "Secondly, both parties to the questions instanced ap- peal to our standards for proof of their views. For proof of this scientific hypothesis no appeal to the standards is possible. Here is another mighty difference. "Thirdly, none of the parties to the questions specified would maintain views which are plainly contrary to the standards. If this scientific hypothesis can be proved to be plainly contrary to the standards, it would not stand upon the same footing- with the subjects upon wdiich dif- ference of teaching is allowable. It would be in another and peculiar category." As the teaching of the professor of Systematic The- ology in our Seminary upon the subject of the will was involved in this allegation, the Synod would, he trusted, indulge him in a few special remarks about that matter. ''The view taught by that professor is neither extra-scrip- tural nor extra-confessional. It confesses to be both scrip- tural and confessional. It claims to derive its proofs from the Bible, from the doctrine of Calvin, from the symbols of the Reformed Church, and especially from the standards of our own church. Whether or not these claims have been made good, they have been made. Such is the method of proof, as any one may satisfy himself who will consult the Professor's published exposition of his views in the Southern Presbyterian Review. Xow, to say that the teaching of that view is on the same footing Avitli the teaching of the Perkins Professor's view of evo- lution, as he now holds it, is simply to throw facts out of account. "I maintain," said the speaker, "that a theological seminary is not the place, and instruction in its halls not the means, to create sentiments adverse to any objection- able features of our doctrinal standards, or to attempt the inauguration of measures looking to their elimination from them. There are other relations sustained by theo- logical professors, and other means accessible to them, through Avhich they may legitimately exert their influ- ence for the attainment of that end. Chiefly there are the church courts, which alone have the power to alter the standards, and the professors are members of those courts. There they may put forth their energies to secure emenda- 486 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. •tions of the constitutional law. Theological professors, .as snch, are absolutely debarred from opposing by their teachings the standards of the church. This discussion is -exceedingly important, contemplated in the light of such a question as this. If, as it would appear, we have not already settled our rule of action in regard to this weighty lousiness, it would be well for us to avail ourselves of this .great opportunity to accomplish so desirable, so necessary .an end." The speaker next points out how the hypothesis in ■question is opposed to the standards as the formal and authoritative interpretation of the scriptures by our -church. He quotes from the Confession of Faith thus: "Tt pleased God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal wisdom, power, :and goodness, in the beginning to create or make of noth- ing the world and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good" ; from the Larger Gatecliism as follows : ''The work of 'Creation is that wherein God did, in the beginning, by tlie word of his power, make of nothing the world and all things therein for himself, within the space of six days, ^nd all very good" ; and from the Shorter Catechism •these words: ''The work of creation is God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space ■of six days, and all very good." "The hypothesis of evolution is inconsistent with the face-meaning of these statements. The connection be- tween the words 'of nothing' and the words 'in the space of six days,' 'within the space of six days,' justifies this view. If the standards had meant to teach creation out cf nothing in the first instance only, they would have so connected the words 'of nothing' with the words 'in the iDCginning' as definitely to have conveyed that meaning. I>ut they also connect the words 'of nothing' with the words 'in the space of six days,' so that the impression is irresistibly made that they intended to teach that creation ^out of nothing went along with the six days. It does not much nuitter here whether or not the standards mean by •six days six literal days of twenty-four hours each. If they could be diverted from their face-meaning and con- CONTKOVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 487 strued to mean six periods, still the doctrine that creation out of nothing proceeded concurrently with those periods, at least in connection with the beginning of each, is con- trary to Dr. Woodrow's view that creation out of nothing occurred in absolutely the first instance only, and that the evolution of the earth, of the lower animals, and prob- ably of Adam's body, was by the process of mediate crea- tion." At length, on page 27 of his pamphlet. Dr. Girardeau takes up the hypothesis of evolution. He says the church holds certain views concerning the formation of man's body in the first instance, and the hypothesis of evolution under consideration is contrary to those views. And he proceeds to compare them after this fashion : ''1. The hypothesis is that the dust from which Adam's body was formed was organic dust. The church's view is that it was inorganic dust — the words 'of the ground' designating the sort of dust ; that the sentence 'unto dust shalt thou return' and the inspired words in Ecclesiastes, 'Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was,' indicate not animal forms, but what is commonly known as dust and so universally called. "2. The hypothesis is that Adam's body was evolved out of, descended with modification from, a long line of ani- mal ancestry reaching back for a protracted period. The church's view is that Adam's body was formed of dust by a sudden, supernatural, constructive act of God. "3. The hypothesis is that Adam as to his body was born of animal parents. The church's view is that Adam as to his body Avas not born at all — that he had no animal parents. "4. The hypothesis is that Adam as to his body was at first in an infantile condition, and grew to* the stature of a man. The church's view is that Adam as to his body never was an infant ; that he did not grow, but was sud- denly and supernaturally formed in the full possession of mature bodily powers. "5. The hypothesis is that the existence of Adam's body preceded for years the formation of Eve's body. The church's view is that the formation of Eve's body fol- lowed closely upon the formation of Adam's. 488 MY LIFE AND TIMES. "Thus in five particulars it has been shown that the hypothesis before us is contrary to the church's views. "But are the church's views what they have now been assumed to be ? and are they here prevailing and recog- nized views ? Of that I will proceed to furnish proof. "It will not be denied that up to the time of the emer- gence of this controversy, occasioned by the delivery and publication of Dr. Woodrow's address, the church's gen- eral views were what I have represented them to be. How has it been since '. What are the views of the church which have been developed, brought out into light and maintained during the discussion which has occurred ? "I cite, first, the faculty of Columbia Seminary. Every member of it has declared his inability to concur in Dr. Woodrow's interpretation of scripture so far as his hy- pothesis of the evolution of Adam's body is concerned. "I mention next the Board of Directors of Columbia Seminary. Every member of it has declared his in- ability to concur in Dr. Woodrow's view ; the minority of course, and the majority also in the paper which they adopted, and which was reported to the Synod. ''1 woidd refer, too, to the religious journals of our church. Of these there are eight. One of them is Dr. Woodrow's own paper, and must therefore be thrown out of account. Of the other seven, only one has advocated Dr. Woodrow's view. Here, then, are six of the old es- tablished journals of the church which fail to concur in the hypothesis in question. Is it not to be inferred that they represent the opinion of the great majority of the church ? "]^o, it cannot be successfully denied that the over- whelming mass of the views of our church, as also of all evangelical churches, is opposed to the hypothesis of the Perkins Professor." Dr. Girardeau proceeds through several pages to take very brief notices of points that had been made in the course of the previous debate in favor of the majority report, and gives his testimony that they have no force. The only other parts of his revised speecli which I deem it justly necessary to publish, are the following : "It is vain to sav, as has been said, that althouiih, in CONTROVEKSIES OF SCIENCE. 489 obedience to bis convictions, be will teach tbe probable truth of his hypothesis, he will not urge its acceptance upon tlie students. It will not be necessary for so able a teacher, after giving his reasons in favor of its probable truth, to exhort his pupils to receive it. ''The point, it is urged again and again, the only point to which Dr. Woodrow directs his instructions is the con- nection between this hypothesis and the Bible. - That is all. Yes ; but what sort of connection ^ Why, this : the hypothesis being probably true, the ordinary interpreta- tion of the Bible is probably untrue. It is modified by the hypothesis. It is to the teaching in a seminary of that kind of connection that objection is made, and the Synod is asked to oppose their prohibition." Rev. J. L. Martin, M. D., D. D., said: "The one point of difference between the contending parties is that one side claims that the Holy Spirit probably meant inorganic dust, while the other claims that the Holy Spirit probably meant organic dust. There is no doubt that in the Bible the word dust often means inorganic dust. All admit that. There is some dispute as to whether it is ever used to signify organic dust. There is no inspired interpreter to tell us the meaning of the word. Each reader must in- terpret the term in the light of its own context. 'Dust shalt thou eat,' was said to the serpent. What did the serpent eat ? Organic dust. It is claimed that the ser- pent represented the devil, and I challenge any man to show that the devil eats inorganic dust. In other parts of God's word the term dust, as I must believe, means organic dust beyond possibility of doubt. 'Dust thou art,' said God to the father of the human race. What was he then? A rational animal with an immortal spirit de- rived from the breath of God. Standing before God with hands and feet and eyes and teeth and tongue, was Adam then inorganic dust ? That is a part of God's word, Ave are told, it is heresy to expound. If Dr. Woodrow can- not expound it in the Seminary, none of us can expound it from the pulpit. " ' Unto dust shalt thou return,' does not mean a re- turn to inorganic dust. When, in the language of Job, after a man's skin worms destroy his flesh, he becomes 490 MY LIFE AIS^D TIMES. assimilated with the worms, and is organic dust. When the enemies of Daniel were cast into the lion's den they did not become inorganic dust. Job said, 'I also am formed out of the clay/ and in another place he asks if he shall be returned to the dust. Job said God formed him of clay, of dust, as he did Adam — formed him of dust from the loins of his father and mother. Was that in- organic dust 'i "So also Solomon says, 'Then shall the dust return to the eaiih as it ivas, and the spirit to God who gave it.' "I call attention to these facts : 1. Here is a statement applying to all men, not to Adam only. 2. They are called 'dust,' when the spirit has departed, that is, their dead body, or corpse, but this is certainly organic dust — still organized into a dead human body. 3. They are said to return to the 'earth,' whence came Adam's body. 4. 'As it was.' As it goes into the earth it certainly is organic dust. The point that strikes me very forcibly is that we have here the word 'dust' applied to all men as to their bodies ; yet in such a connection as makes certain that here at least 'dust' is organic. So in Eeclesiastes iii. 20, 'All go unto one place ; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.' The context shows unmistakably that Sol- omon is running the parallel between brute and man as to their bodies. He does not run a contrast — except in verse twenty-one, as to their 'spirit.' He says 'all' are of the 'dust' — brute and man ; further that 'all' turn to 'dust' again. These affirmations are made of the 'sons of men' and of the 'beasts' (verse nineteen) equally ; they apply to their bodies and to their bodies alone. If now 'beast,' according to Solomon, came 'of the dust,' and yet no doubt came by evolution, then, in the name of reason, who can say that because the Bible says man came 'of the. dust,' therefore he could not have come by evolution? Evidently we are shut up to this : If 'of the dust' denies evolution of 'man,' equally so does it deny evolution of the 'beasts.' Per contra, if 'of the dust' does not con- tradict evolution of 'beasts,' equally so it does not con- tradict evolution of the 'sons of men.' We know that all the 'sons of men' that Solomon had ever seen came by evolution, and yet he affirms of them 'all are of the dust.' CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 491 So again, all the beasts that Solomon had ever seen came by evolution, yet of them also he affirms, 'All are of the dnst.' Manifestly, according to Solomon, there is no more contradiction between dust and evolution in regard to 'men' than in regard to 'beasts.' In Ecclesiastes xii. 1 he affirms, 'Creator' of men. Ergo he saw no contradic- tion between creation and evolution. God created Solo- mon of the dust. Yet he created Solomon by natural gen- eration. Isaac's body and that of John the Baptist were undoubtedly of God's creation, and undoubtedly 'of the dust,' yet in both these instances the scripture account would lead us to recognize, if not a clear case of the super- natural, yet at least there was something extraordinary in their generation. 'Evolution,' 'creation,' 'of the dust,' are ergo not contradictories. ''Dr. Woodrow's opponents do exactly what they charge him with doing. They take a text and force it to mean •everywhere what it means once. Dr. Woodrow does not do that. If he had done it, he would never have written that the hypothesis of evolution is 'probably true.' If he had done as his opponents did and violated the rules of interpretation by forcing a word to mean in one place what it did in another, he would have written that evolu- tion is a demonstrated hypothesis. Dr. Woodrow's posi- tion is that the expression 'dust' is an ambiguous one. As the Bible has left the question an open one, the child of God can go through that open door into the domain of science to seek light. If the knowledge of what material man was made of was necessary for the saving of souls, or an essential matter of faith, the Bible would never liave left the question involved in doubt. That shut and silent Bible is his passport into the regions of science, and gives him permission to investigate his ancestry for himself. "Brethren on the other side object to the word 'extra- scriptural ;' if they don't like that, they can take the log- ical reverse, and call it 'intra-scriptural,' and admit that evolution is in the Bible. They object to non-contradic- tion as applied to the theory, and seem to be equally averse to contradiction. I may say for my side that we liave piped unto our opponents, and they would not 492 MY LIFE AND TIMES. fiance, and mourned unto tlicni and they have not la- mented. "I do not see why an immediate vote should not be taken. I am as anxious to go home as anybody, but I jjropose to stand by these guns until the ship goes down. Synod may murder and bury this truth if it sees tit. I will not stand by the grave with streaming eyes, but with contidenee that God will give it strength to rule in his own good time. I challenge any man to say that the theorv of evolution is not extra-scriptural." The Eev. H. B. Pratt: "I say so." "Put him on record, Mr. Clerk. Put it away in the archives that my brother, wdiile believing that the doctrine of evolution is in the Bible, objects to having it taught in the Theological Seminary ! Because there is something about man in the Bible, any study of man is called intra- scriptural. It might as well be said that because the sun and moon and stars are in the Bible, we must go there to study astronomy ; that because the earth is in the Bible,, we must go there to study geography. It is claimed that the doctrine is extra-confessional. ''Tt has been declared that the doctrine of evolution shocks the instincts of the human heart. Instinct is often not from God, but from training. It is said the sensibilities of the church are shocked. The sensibilities of the Jewish church were shocked when they heard of the Babe of Bethlehem. Instinct is frequently opposed to common sense. I have wondered how any human mind ever originated the idea that there was some bearing of the evolution theory on the human body of the Saviour. There is nothing in that. There is no connection between evolution and the human body of Christ that should shock any properly educated Bible student. The first promise spoke of 'the seed of the woman' — the woman who was not descended from the brutes, but created by God from the body of Adam. Jesus Christ in his human nature did not descend from Adam by ordinary generation. He was not a descendant of Adam, but came from Eve to Mary. When Christ was on earth he ate bread and meat, and they were assimilated with his flesh and bone, and be- came part of the actual body of the Son of God. Is that a CONTKOVEKSIES OF SCIENCE. 493 shocking statement? It is true, however. I do not see the use of such talk as has been heard about shocked sen- sibilities from this platform. It is a substitution of rhetoric and stage-acting and figures of speech for plain, scripture-informed common sense." Dr. Martin proceeded to notice what he called Dr. Girardeau's main pivot, namely : "I am not prepared to say Dr. Woodrow's doctrine contradicts (1) the Bible, in its highest and absolute sense; (2) or any essential fea- ture of evangelical religion; (3) or any vital point of Calvinism." But he maintained that it did contradict the Bible as expounded in our standards — in certain particu- lars which he proceeded to enumerate. "Xow I call attention to this point: If, according to Dr. Girardeau, Woodrow and the standards contradict, no matter in what, or in how many particulars, and this was so clear to Dr. Girardeau's mind, and yet it was not clear to his mind that Woodrow and the Bible contradict each other, then clearly, just to that extent, no matter how much or how little, the standards must vary from the Bible. If so, then amend the standards so as to be in perfect harmony with the Bible; and then, since Wood- row and the Bible did not contradict, so also Woodrow and the standards could not contradict. Instead, how- ever, of seeking to amend the standards, they were seek- ing to amend Woodrow. Instead of prosecuting the standards for not being in perfect harmony with the Bible, they were prosecuting Woodrow, because he was, in their judgment, not in harmony with the standards !" Dr. Martin continued : "Synod has just as much right to discuss how Dr. Woodrow will vote at the next elec- tion as to discuss his extra-scriptural views on evolution. The question of his vote could be brought up just as this question has been. It might be argued that as the mem- bers of the Southern Presbyterian Church are Demo- ■cratic to the core, and the Seminary is supported by Dem- ocrats, Dr. Woodrow's statement that he would probably vote for Blaine would be taken as likely to injure the in- stitution, and he could have been investigated by the "board, and brought before Synod to answer for his extra- ficriptural politics, just as he has been brought to answer 494 MY LIFE A^^D TIMES. for his extra-scriptural opinion on evolution — because both are opposed to the general sentiment of the church. ''I contend that the purpose for which Dr. Woodrow's chair was established was for teaching the connection be- tween science and the Bible, and that he has done that and nothing else. He has not taught or inculcated the theory of evolution. He has taught, as he was bound to do, the connection between' the probable hypothesis of evolution and the revealed word. There is no inconsistency in the action of the majority of the board in endorsing Dr. Woodrow's course while repudiating his theory, for hi& teaching was at the inevitable and direct demand of his duty. lie has been brought before the only la^vful tri- bmial and tried, and a verdict of 'not guilty' rendered, and yet Synod is asked to sentence him to have his mouth sealed unlawfully. ''As my view on evolution has been extensively pub- lished in several ways, I have not thought it necessary to define it. I think it well, however, to say that I am not a convert to Dr. Woodrow^'s theory of evolution. I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I am an humble inquirer after light." He then proceeded to describe the effect of the adoption^ of the minority report. ''Students in Dr. Woodrow's class-room, asking him for information regarding the evo- lution theory or the meaning of the word 'dust' in certain places in the Bible, would be informed that persistence in- such requests would be rebellion against the associated s^Tiods, which had forbidden the discussion of those sub- jects in the Seminary. I do not know whether or not the student would be allowed tO' ask the information lie wanted from any of the other professors. At any rate, the man who has been especially selected and commissioned to investigate such subjects would have his mouth closed- "Evolution is a living question. In the hands of infidel scientists it is used to contradict the Bible, and by the articles regarding it in secular papers the impression is- left on the minds of thousands that if evolution is true, the Bible is false. Dr. Woodrow shows and teaches his students that if the truth of evolution should be demon- strated, the Bible would not 1)c contradicted. If evolution) CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 49'5 should prove to be false science, it would still not contra- dict God's word. He sends them forth armed against all the assaults of scientific infidelity. The minority report proposes to tie his hands from supplying this armor. "I can never forget that it was the lectures in Dr. "Woodrow's class-room that checked me in a wild down- ward career to infidelity and atheism and cheerless blank despair. "Dr. "Woodrow has taught his students of the hypoth- esis of the specific diversity of races, and has disproved it ; he has given them the hypothesis of the sun being the centre, and has proven it. No objection is made to either. The only fault the minority seem to find is with the un- proven hypothesis — one still in doubt, and neither proven nor disproven. 1 deny that Dr. Woodrow 'teaches' the doctrine of evolution. He handles it to show it in its con- nection with the Bible, and presents it as an unproven hypothesis. ''In order to secure the passage of the minority report, five questions ought to be answered and proved : First, What is the accepted interpretation ? Second, What is the scripture so interpreted ? Third, Where is the church's accepted interpretation ? Fourth, Is this 'ac- cepted' interpretation the true interpretation ? Fifth, Wlierein does Dr. Woodrow contradict either (1) the church's accepted interpretation ? or (2) the true inter- pretation ( "There is no inconsistency in the action of the majority of the board. It had a perfect right to say that while it did not agree with Dr. Woodrow's opinion that the hy- pothesis of evolution was probably true, it approved of his teaching the connection between that doctrine and the Bible. The action of the majority of the board places the church in the only absolutely safe position she can obtain. If the hypothesis of evolution should be disproven, the church would not have been committed to it in any way. If it sliould be proven^ she would not have been com- mitted against it. In either case the church's ministers Avould have knowledge of the subject and understand that the scripture is not contradicted. The question of how far Dr. Woodrow's scientific views should coincide with 496 MY LIFE AND TIMES. those of the church before he should teach them in the Seminary is no question at alL Dr. Woodrow cannot be judged by the standards of the other professors who teach theology. The church has a theological creed and the divine right to shape one, but she has no scientific creed and no possible right to make one. She has nothing to do with science as a church. ]^o member of Synod would vote to amend the Confession so as to declare a belief that the world is a sphere. Why ? Because you would have to go outside the word of God to prove it. It is so with the evolution theory. The church as a church has no right to an opinion about it, and no right to inquire Dr. Woodrow's opinion about it, so long as he shows that it does not contradict the scripture. Calvin taught that the church should investigate only where the Bible gaiided her, and stop short where its light failed. 'Preach the word.' The Saviour's last command was to 'teach all things that 1 have commanded you.' We are told to teach nothing else. God has fixed a great gulf between science and the Bible. jSTo man ever studied science with the Bible without going wrong ; no man ever tried to save his soul by the laws of nature without being equally wrong. The church has as much to do with Dr. Woodrow's politics as it has with his scientific views, and has nothing to do with either. Orthodoxy in politics and orthodoxy in science has nothing to do with orthodoxy in Presbyte- rian ism. "In case Dr. Woodrow's mouth is closed on the evolu- tion question, what will the Seminary do with the students who come there from the colleges and universities or from a course of reading, eager to know about this great subject of evolution, and seeking light on it and on its relation to revelation ? You may silence such inquiries by telling the inquirer to content himself with reading his Bible, but you will have an inquiry living in an active mind which may find a destructive or dangerous answer any- where. ''If any one feels that he knows absolutely the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the use of the word 'dust' in the sec- ond chapter of Genesis, and that it must be inorganic dust, then he can vote for the minority report. If he has CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 497 a donbt on the subject, he will have to sustain the ma- jority. Sifted doAvn and run through the crucible to the last analysis, that is the substance of the whole subject, and the point of difference between the two reports. One ■of them, the minority, must take the ground that that dust in the second chapter of Genesis means absolutely and in- variably inorganic dust. The other says it is probably organic dust. The majority report is entitled to the benefit of the doubt." Rev. W. J. McKay, of the Board of Directors of the Seminary, said : "What are the constitutional limitations •on the teaching of the professors ? They are laid dowm in the Constitution of the associated synods, and the board is required to hold the professors to them. The only lim- itation I can find is that, on being inaugurated, the teach- ers should bind themselves to accept the standards of the church, and to teach nothing contrary to them. All are •agreed that the standards are the church's interpretation of the Bible. But who is to interpret the standards ? What is a received interpretation ? It is the interpreta- -tion of popular sentiment in the church and of the lower church courts. ]^o authority should interpret the laws it does not make, and surely professors in their teaching and the Board of Directors in their management ought not to be controlled by such a shifting thing as public feeling." Dr. Girardeau rose and said the whole question was, in his view, one simply of executive policy. ''There is no de- mand for any dogmatic declaration or any theory. The board is in the position of an executive committee of Synod, with its acts subject to review." Mr. McKay continued : '"How far is the church respon- sible for the teaching of any of its teachers, professors, or preachers ? Dr. Girardeau teaches certain views of the 'diaconate, but the church does not endorse them. In this present case the church is responsible for the fact of Dr. Woodrow's teaching the connection between evolution and the scripture, because he teaches it under her orders, but she is not responsible for his private scientific opin- ions or for his expression of them. A certain amount of ►latitude is demanded. 498 MY LIFE AND TIMES. "It has been stated that Dr. Woodrow is not on triaL. His principles and beliefs are on trial, however, and he- cannot be separated from them. He must stand or go- down with them. Dr. Girardeau has expressed his will- ingness to put a shield between Dr. Woodrow and the- charge of heresy, but the paper he defends does not." Dr. Girardeau said he was willing to have the paper amended to do so. Mr. McKay said he might be, but those who prepared it had not incorporated any such amendment. "And it is needed. One paper assuming to represent the church has announced 'heresy in Columbia Seminary,' and has not only sought thereby to injure the Seminary and its pro- fessors, but to put a black mark on every student who has^ come from the institution in the last twenty-five years. They are also on trial. "If the action of the majority of the board is sustained. Dr. AVoodrow will still be amenable to trial, and can be brought up for trial in a regular way. The cry of 'danger' and 'heresy' has softened down to a whisper that the- teaching of Dr. Woodrow may contradict the interpreta- tion by the standards of the scriptures. But it does not even do that, for the only mention by the standards of the- material composition of Adam is in the Catechism, w^here the Bible's lang-uage, 'the dust of the ground' is simply reproduced without comment, the Westminster compilers having wisely omitted to say whether the dust was organic or inorganic." Dr. Hemphill moved that Dr. Woodrow be requested to speak at half-past seven o'clock, and that after his speech, debate be cut off, he having the reply to anything further said. So ordered. At the night session Professor James Wo<3drow took the platform and spoke in his own defence : "I met the Svnod nineteen vears aa;o, durina; the dark, times that tried men's souls. Then I communed with my brethren touching the same institution whose interests are now occupying so much of your attention." Dr. Wood- row reviewed briefly the circumstances of that time when its nearest friends were ready to give up the ship and retire. "It is a source of comfort to me that at that time- COISTTROVEKSIES OF SCIE^fCE. 4:99^ I was able to do something to restore hope and reanimate the beloved institution. "For thirty-two years I have been your servant. Yon have known me, known my manner of life, and tried me, and know if you have ever known anything in me worthy of distrust." "As I have sat in this body and heard the discussions, I have sometimes wondered of whom you were speaking.. When I heard words of praise, I knew they were not de- served ; when 1 heard words of blame, I felt that I had not merited them. I am not guilty of the things said and reported concerning me. I have heard it said that I am not on trial. I know I am not. There is no indictment against me as against one on trial. I know that the- church is a law-abiding body, and having thrown its pro- tecting segis around me, it will not take my ecclesiastical life from me by lynch law. "But things have been said that might have announced to me that I rnn on trial. There has been talk of offences, and discussions of whether or not I could be accused of heresy. It has been taken for granted that there is some accusation against me. "I have not been summoned here as I would have been if I were a prisoner at the bar. I have come voluntarily. I know not how to describe this — shall I call it process ? Is it a process ? I ask pardon if I misuse terms. I am in such profound ignorance of whether I am a prisoner or not that I can hardly select the proper terms." "The Board of Directors asked me to deliver an address explaining the connection between evolution and the Bible as taught in my class-room, with the statement that the assaults of iniidel science by evolution and other insidious errors were injuring the cause of Christ. For years I had been teaching that the theory of evolution, true or false, does not contradict the scriptures. The board has reported to the synods, rejoicing that no evolution or other insidious errors were taught in the Seminary." Dr. Woodrow then read the resolutions of the majority of the board, adopted after considering his address. "Such words from such men, the representatives of the Synod, are reward enough for the labors of twenty-four years.. 500 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. They satisfy me that I am not walking far astray in the paths of infidelity and heresy. "In the year 1857 the initial steps for the establish- ment of the Perkins chair were taken, nnder resolutions reciting the attacks of science on religion, and recom- mending the creation of a chair of natural science in con- nection with revealed religion. I was called to that chair without my solicitation, and without word or act of mine to secure it. I was taken from other work for the church. I was teaching by your authority and in your name,* and spending as much of my time as I possibly could in preaching to the poor and neglected in the regions round about. You knew, Moderator — that is, the church knew — what my opinions were ; I had been serving you for <3ight years. I taught one and another of those who are to- night in this house, principles which, since I came here into this city of Greenville, I have heard denounced as •contrary to the Confession of Faith and the standards of our church. The very men wdio called me to that chair had either sat under me, or had been my associates, or had been members of the Board of Trustees of Oglethorpe University, or had been of those who confirmed or ap- proved of my nomination and my teaching. Consequently you were not electing some one who might have enter- tained opinions that were wholly and grossly different from those which you would have taught the theological students of this church. "What was I to teach ? To what was I called ? At the earliest moment I met the directors to consult as to what I was to do. The chair w^as a new one. ISTo other seminary liad one like it. How was I, a youth, to know what to do without the guidance of the church ? I told them my plans and views, and what I proposed to do, and received their approval. Since then I have followed those in- structions, and walked strictly in the narrow path pointed out to me." He then read from his inaugural address, setting forth his eonception of his duties, in which he had said that one * He had been for eight years professor of Natural Science in Oglethorpe University wlien the Synod of Georgia, by election, transferred him to Columbia Seminary. CONTROVEESIES OF SCIENCE. 501 of them would be to show that when science and the Bible were, or were supposed to be, contradictory, it was either false science or a false interpretation of the Bible. ''Now that I teach that certain popular ideas floating in the public mind of the meaning of certain words are wrong, will you punish me for it ? If I am to teach only what is pronounced by some ecclesiastical body an established and proved dogma, why did they not tell me so twenty- three years ago ? ''In those twenty-three years I have learned something — the chief thing; the entire absence of discord between true science and the revealed word. I have not been handling science for its own sake. In no case have I taught it but for the purpose for which I was ordered to teach or handle it by the voice of the church, representing the voice of God. The only thing I have ever told my students that it is their duty to receive from me is that they are to bow to the Lord God Almighty, and to nothing else ; that they are to be freemen in the Lord. I am to be forbidden to inculcate ? I have never inculcated except in the sense I have told you. To science as science nobody has ever heard me allude within the walls of that Sem- inary. "The chief purjDOse of the chair, as expressed in the res- olution creating it, is to 'refute the objections of infidel scientists.' When two witnesses contradict each other, do lawyers endeavor to make them say the same thing ? Do they not rather appeal to judge and jury with some reasonable hypothesis to remove the apparent contradic- tion ? "I warned the church when I took my vows that I w^ould teach that the teachings of geology rega.rding the antiquity of the world are true. It was understood that I would not teach that the world was but one hundred and forty-four hours older than Adam ; that I would say that I knew that the world was so old that the mind of man cannot grasp the years or the centuries or the thousands of years of its age. But I have never sought to teach that the Confession of Faith means anything but that the world was created in six days. There is not one word or syllable in all the Confession of Faith or Catechisms .502 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. that I would wish to have changed, evolutionist though I may be. There is nothing in them to contradict my be- liefs. In the word of God there is not one word or syl- lable I do not believe." "What right has the church to teach anything regard- ing natural science ? What right has the church to do anything ( I will read the commission. As Christ was about to leave this world in the body, he said to the as- sembled eleven, 'Go ye into all the world and teach the gospel to every creature.' There is the commission. If the church authoritatively undertakes to teach anything outside the Bible, she is transgressing the law and adding to it and bringing upon herself the plagues written in the book. But when a dnt)' is commanded or a right conferred by competent authority, everything involved with the ful- fillment of that duty or the enjoyment of that right goes with the command or tlie grant. One of these duties is to train and educate men to preach the gospel by the best means devised by tlie wisdom and knowledge given us by God. The churcli may not only teach those things that tend to prepare and ecpiip preachers of the word, but it may do anything tending to aid the preaching of the gos- pel. It may buy land or exchange, it may build houses, all with the limitation that the acts done are to promote the preaching of the gospel with the greatest power. Its teaching is not limited to the seminary. It may go into primary scliools and teach the children their alpha- l)et ; it may send boys to schools and colleges. The church may as truly teacli matliematics as theology, provided it is for the equijmient of men to preach and teach the gospel. "What is the responsibility" of the church for my teach- ing? Is it to examine every word I say to see if it is strictly correct ? Does it examine the chemistry taught by Professor Martin in Davidson ? When chemistry was revolutionized a few years ago, was that professor ex- pected to come before Synod and tell them he would teach the new chemistry ? Or was he to teach the old chemistry that he knew was wrong because he had ])egun teaching it ? With all due respect, what does Synod know about chemistry ? When any man employs a lawyer, does he CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 503 Teqnire him to submit to him all his pleadings and tell him the details of management ? When a pastor is called to a church, is he instructed how to preach, and whether he shall use prose or poetrv ? The only right the church has to interfere with any of its teachers is when they teach that which is contrary to the word of God as interpreted by the church standards. ISTo man sitting as a presbyter can dare, as such, to have an opinion on any subject ex- cept as that subject is related to the word of God. You have no right or authority to discuss or consider any of my opinions except as they relate to the word. Xo au- thority is given you, and when you take it you step be- yond your rights and grasp at things which the Lord, the King, has kept out of your hands." Dr. Woodrow then proceeded to analyse the report of tthe minority of the Committee on the Seminary. ''I know that every word of affection and respect for myself ut- tered by the gentleman who drew that paper (Dr. Gir- ardeau) is sincere and true. But the warmth of his heart has on this occasion interfered with the usual clear operations of his head. Where is the necessity for saying that the question of my heresy is not before the Synod ? If it is not, what is the use of saying anything about it ? Yet the fourth resolution charges me with teaching doc- trine contrary to the teaching of scripture as interpreted by the church standards — that is, contrary to the right and true interpretation of scripture." Dr. Woodrow read from the Form of Government defining as an offence the holding or teaching of anything contrary to the word of God, and the definition of heresy as false teaching likely to do much injury. "^l\ opponents declare that my false teachings will do vast harm. I acknowledge that I have spread them industriously. The charges against me are the gravest described in the Form of Government, and if they can be made good, will require my deposition, imless I can use the excuse provided in the Fomi, and class myself as a person of feeble understanding. There is comfort in the thought that my accuser does not really hold me to be amenable to these dreadful charges; for though he has known my views in general for twenty-four years, being much of that time in the same institution, he 504 MY LIFE AND TIMES. has never breathed to me that I was guilty of such enor- mities. "The second resohition holds mc up, not as contradict- ing the Bible in its highest and absolute sense, but as con- tradicting the interpretations of the Bible by the Presby- terian Church in the United States. ''Is Synod to publish its shame to the world by speaking of the Bible in 'its highest and absolute sense,' thereby implying that there is a higher sense than the church standards contain — that the standards are not true l When a man who has learned geology comes to his min- ister to inquire the way of life, but distrusting the Bible because he knows the statement that the world was made in six literal days is imtrue, is the minister to be silent because the Confession seals his lips ? Or is he to say, 'The Bible does not teach that lie. The Bible is true. It does not teach that the world is but six thousand years old.' And yet^ Moderator, you are asked, by adopting this reso- lution, to proclaim to the world that these two things are entirely different. "The third resolution condemns as inexpedient and in- judicious the declaration of the Board of Directors that the relations between science and scripture are plainly, correctly, and satisfactorily set forth in Dr. Woodrow's address, ^ow, Moderator, observe what is commended here — just one thing and nothing else. There is no ap- proval of Dr. Woodrow's ideas about evolution ; what is commended is simply Dr. Woodrow's setting forth of the relations between the teachings of science and those of God's word, namely, that, when rightly interpreted, they do not contradict each other. The board understood well that the professor has not been teaching natural science to his students, but simply setting forth the relations be- tween science and scripture." Recurring again to the fourth resolution, Dr. Wood- row said : "It charges that the board has virtually ap- proved my inculcating and defending an unverified hy- pothesis. Moderator, they did nothing of the kind ; the Board of Directors neither virtually nor otherwise ap- proved of the inculcating and defending the hypothesis of evolution. If they had, they would, when speaking in COXTROVEESIES OF SCIENCE. 505 the name of the Lord, have arrog-ated to decide a question \vhich the Lord had not commitled to them. They would have been expressing an opinion that an hypothesis of natural science was true, which neither they nor this Synod, speaking in the name of the Lord, are competent to do. "]^ow, let us ask what are the facts as to the opinion of experts touching evolution ? I do not like, any more than is necessary, to refer to myself in any way, but in this case I must be allowed to stand here as a witness for the time being. Beginning in the far northeast, at Harvard University, there are the distinguished professor of Bot- any, Asa Gray, and a number of young men associated with him ; and near by Alexander Agassiz, the son of the distinguished Louis Agassiz, and very like his father in the extent of his knowledge, however unlike him in his be- lief on this particular subject — all evolutionists. Coming to the University at Providence, Brown LTniversity, there is the son of a Congregational minister, Professor Pack- ard, wdio is a pronounced evolutionist. At Yale there is the venerable Dana, and there are the learned Marsh, and Verrill, and Brewer, and the younger Dana — all evolu- tionists. And let me say in passing, not a single anti- evolutionist. xVt the Academy of JSTatural Science in Philadelphia there are the earnest Professor Heilprin, and Cope and Leidy and Lewis ; they are all evolution- ists, and there is not an anti-evolutionist. At Johns Hop- kins University the learned professor of Biology is an evolutionist, and there is another evolutionist, Professor Brooks. While I cannot say of my OAvn personal knowl- edge, I am told that in the University of Virginia the same doctrine is taught. May I go on 'i What does Pro- fessor Blake teach by your authority in Davidson Col- lege ? If I make a mistake, I hope that any one who knows that I make a mistake will correct me. He teaches the nebular hypothesis as probably true. And while his colleague. Professor Martin, does not believe in evolution, he does believe what I believe, that belief in evolution is perfectly consistent with belief in the sacred scriptures, as he has Avritten to me himself. And so I am told that Professor Du Pre, at Wofford College, teaches it. I know 500) MY LIFE AXD TIMES, that in the University of Georgia evolution is taught. I know — shall I tell it? — that the Synods of ISTashville and Alahania and other synods of the Scmthwcst are teaching evohition at the Southwestern Presbyterian University. I know that the Synod of Kentucky is teaching evolution at the Central University ; and so I might go on ; but this surely is enough. Along the whole line of these colleges which I have named I have failed to find an exception. "Now as to the belief of naturalists in foreign lands. When in feeble health, some twelve years ago, I went abroad and spent a portion of my time in the enlightened capital of Saxony, where I was warmly received and in- vited to become a member of the scientific association of that city. I visited the Scientific Association of Switzer- land in 1872, and I spent days in conversing with my fel- low members upon this very subject. In 1873, I had the pleasure of attending the meeting of the German I^atural- ists' Association at Wiesbaden, and there too I pursued my inquiries. Among others I made the acquaintance of one who has been continually named during this discus- sion, Professor Yirchow, with whom I conversed freely touching this very subject. In London, I had the oppor- tunity of attending the Geological Society and the Anthro- pological Society, and making the acquaintance of the dis- tinguished naturalists in those great societies. ISTow, jModerator, do you want to know what I found ? I did not then believe evolution to be true ; I believed it to be not true, and I wanted to be upheld and strengthened in my opposition ; and I was trying to find all the help I could in that direction. So far as the capital of Saxony was concerned, the professor of Comparative Anatomy, in whose laboratory I was dissecting day after day, did not believe in ('■volution. The professor of Geology, distin- guished highly in that kingdom, was in doubt. But every other naturalist in that association, so far as I could learn, except those two and myself, were decided evolu- tionists. At the meeting which I have referred to, at Freiburg, in Switzerland, I found no anti-evolutionist except one Presbyterian minister, who had paid some at- tention to science, and so had become a member of that association. At the meetinc; of the German naturalists CONTEOVEKSIES OF SCIENCE. 507 .at Wiesbaden, the subject having been brought promi- nentl}' forward, the greatest interest was felt. Every one was ablaze with regard to> the matter, and yet though I prosecuted my inquiries with great diligence, I could not find a single member who agreed with me. From my conversations with Professor Virchow, I feel sure he would be greatly amused and amazed if he knew how he has been quoted during this controversy as an anti- evolutionist. *'In my enumeration of colleges I should have stated that evolution is taught in the University of ^orth Caro- lina by young Professor Holmes from Laurens. "Since my return home I have continued these in- quiries to which I have been referring. During a recent visit to Philadelphia, where I met many members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I asked each of them to what extent evolution was re- ceived. On being invariably told it was almost univer- -sally believed, I asked if they knew of any exception among leading naturalists in America; the answer was always the same, 'Yes, one, Sir William Dawson, of Mon- treal.' During the same visit I met a member of the British Association ; and to my stereotyped question I received the answer that evolution was accepted as true by nearly all British naturalists. In France I have been able to hear of but one anti-evolutionist who is eminent, the distinguished De Quatrefages." Dr. Woodrow then read a letter he had recently re- •ceived from his former fellow student. Professor William H. BreAver, of Yale College, whom he styles a Christian gentleman. This eminent scientist had been engaged in various geological surveys and other scientific work in the field, and was intimately acquainted with many work- ing naturalists. This letter was in reply to Dr. Wood- row's request for .the names of such naturalists who were, and of such as were not, evolutionists. The writer says : "7 kno'w of but one eminent naturalist in America who does not 'believe in evolution,' that is, the venerable Sir William Dawson, of ■Canada, who is an illustrious geologist and a good man. "When I speak of naturalists, I include all geologists, whether structural or experts in paleontology. ... I have a somewhat 508 MY LIFE AND TIMES. wide personal acquaintance with this class in this country, less so in Europe. "I have an impression that in Europe a few naturalists are still left, all old men, who have not accepted the modern doctrine of evolution; but who they are and what their present belief is I do not know. While I can repeat many names of eminence there who believe in evolution, I cannot cite one who does not, although I think some still exist. ... 1 think that the working naturalists of the world are as substantially agreed as to the truth of the doctrine of evolution as the educated men of tlie world are as to the rotundity of tlie earth. "I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Of the ninety-four living members (1 have run through the list) I am acquainted personally with thirty-two naturalists who believe in evolution (T exclude from this all the mathematicians, astronomers, physicists, engineers, etc., and all others whose belief I have no knowledge of), and I do not know of any member, naturalist or otherwise, who denies it: but tlien I have no positive knowledge as to the beliefs of a number of the members. "As I look down the first page of the list, I find the naturalists (including geologists) Alexander Agassiz, Spencer F. Baird, W. K. Brooks, W. H. Brewer, C. Comstoek, E. D. Cope, E. Coues, J. D. Dana, C. Button, W. G. Farlow, G. K. Gilbert, F. N. Gill, Asa Gray, and so on down the list. •'There is an annual 'Scientific Directory,' or 'Naturalists' Di- rectory,' published at Salem, and some years ago I looked over the list as then constituted, and marked the names of all those scientists whose religious belief I had any knowledge of, and I was struck with the large number who were connected with some evangelical church —I, then and still think a larger proportion by far than would be found to be the case with a similar list of lawyers or doctors. "I have among my scientific acquaintances devout and zealous Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopa- lians, etc., etc., who believe in evolution, and who are no more dis- turbed in their religious faith by this belief than by the belief that the earth is round, the sun the centre of the solar system, or the world more than six thousand years old. "It seems to me that the doctrine of evolution is now as firmly and surely established as either of the three doctrines (dogmas, if you choose) I have named. Many of my friends will not discuss it now, except as they might discuss either of the other three beliefs named, and it seems to me most unfortunate that the clergy should be the last and most reluctant to accept, even as an intellectual belief, a doctrine so firmly placed, and so generally accepted by other classes of educated men. CONTROVERSIES OF SCIEiS"CE. 509 "As a teacher, I see much of young men, and. know their diffi- culties. 8ome years ago I had much experience with the rougher elements of society when at work on explorations and surveys ; and my belief is that this attitude of so many good clergymen against scientific progress is a more powerful factor in the turning of the masses away from religious teaching, which so many are deploring, than all the writings and all the arguments of all the infidels in Christendom. "You and I are both old enough to liave seen its sad efl'ects in the discussion of the geological question. That is now settled; the evil appears to be renewed in the matter of evolution, with the same sad results. "He ends with the prayer that this Synod may be kept from simihir folly. "^ow, Moderator, I have given you the evidence on this point fully, and as clearly as I could, setting before you the sources of my information, even at the risk of do- ing that which was immodest. "But have we not much evidence on the other side? Have we not heard a great deal of Sir William Thom- son's opposition to evolution ? And is he not a distin- guished scientific man ? And ought not his testimony to be decisive ? Undoubtedly he is one of the most eminent men of science living. But on a question of natural his- tory, is he an expert? The sphere of his greatness lies outside of that department of science. He has studied mathematics, the molecular constitution of matter, elec- tricity and heat, and various other physical subjects ; and in these departments of knowledge he is a master. But he lias not so studied natural history, and there he cannot speak with authority. But let us suppose that he is here a competent witness, and let us hear what he said some years ago. When he was delivering an address before the British Association, he gave it as his opinion that the way life originated on this planet was that it was brought hither by meteorites wandering through space and falling on the earth, and that all present life came from that source. Xow, as anti-evolutionists have introduced Sir William as their witness, they are bound to accept his tes- timony. Will not Judge Walsh there tell you that that is the rule ? So here we have a person introduced as a witness to prove the orthodox belief, maintaining evolu- 510 MY LIFE AND TIMES. tion by the most fanciful ideas ever uttered in relation to it. Why, Darwin himself was nearer the orthodox be- lief than that. He held that God did create immediately some thing-s — the first forms of life on the earth ; bnt thi& good Presbyterian elder, Sir William Thomson, tells ns that he thinks it most probable that the first germs of life were bronght by these wandering meteorites wildly ca- reering through space ! ''Another anti-evolntionist Avitncss is that prince of naturalists, the great Louis xlgassiz, my friend and my teacher. We are told that he pronounced the theory of evolution a scientific blunder ; and surely he knew if any- body did. Well, if we must receive his testimony as con- clusive on one point in natural history, we must receive it as equally trustworthy in all. As believers in the Bible,, we are much interested in the question of the unity of the human race. Ask this master what he believes on that point. He replies : 'All the members of the human family belong to a single species.' 'Oh !' you will say, 'that is all right; that is just what we believe.' But he would stop you before you rejoiced too much. 'Yes,' he adds, 'a single species, but that species consists of many varieties ; and each of these varieties had entirely different ances- tors. There is the red man, the negro, the white man, and the Chinaman ; and I know too much about natural history to believe that all of these could come from the same source. Instead of a single pair being created, as you think, there must have been hundreds of negroes "created at the same time, and hundreds of Chinese, and hundreds of white men. There is no such thing as unity of origin.' That is what he would tell you. But I am not going to accept the testimony of even so eminent a man as conclusive against that of the cloud of witnesses I have- produced before you, when I find him going so far astray and teaching what I know to be not true. "NTow are you going to commit the Synod of South Car- olina and the whole church to the assertion that evolution is an 'unverified hypothesis' on such evidence ? Is that to be the belief of a body that has no business to have any scientific belief? If you are going to have a scientifie belief in this matter, it would be well perhaps to study CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 511 the subject somewhat hDiiger, lest you meet the fate which has befallen every council in every part of the Christian church which has ever undertaken to formulate its belief Avith regard to natural science or natural history, from the earliest ages down to the present time. I know that the holy office of 163'3 has its defenders and upholders upon this floor ; but if you can consistently with a proper sense of duty, abstain from putting yourselves in the same category, surely you will do it. ''The next allegation in the minority report against my hypothesis," said Dr. Woodrow", ''is that it is contrary to the interpretation of the scriptures by our church and to her prevailing and recognized views." He had read from the Confession and the Larger Catechism, he said, all that they contain on the subject of the creation of man. ''Do those standards contain anything about the 7node of man's creation, that is, as to whether it was mediate or immediate ? But this minority report does not lean solely on our standards, but refers us to the church's prevalent views. Where are these to be found ? I suppose we must go to prominent Christian men and ministers. Twenty- five years ago, had I wanted to know the prevailing views of the church about geology, I would have gone to the Rev. Dr. Talmage, the honored president of a university in Georgia. He held the view that the world was only six thousand years old, and that the scriptures so taught. That was the church's prevailing view then. When I came to Columbia, I found that the loved Thornwell held the same view, and so did his successor. A few years ago, I know that the three senior professors at Union Theolog- ical Seminary believed just as Dr. Talmage did. Those were the prevailing and recognized views of our church twenty-five years ago. But because these good and learned men believed thus and I did not, was I disbeliev- ing the truth of the scriptures ? Their judgment, great, good and learned as they were and are, could not affect the opinion of anv one who looked into the subject for him- self." Dr. Woodrow having spoken a long time, and being evidently fatigued, a motion of adjournment was made, when he remarked that he "was in the hands of Synod." 512 MY LIFE AND TIMES. Then he added that as home duties were probably calling for some to retire, he requested such to retire now. A few did so ; and then expressing his thanks for the little rest given him, Dr. Woodrow continued: ''I know that it is generally supposed that if one believes in evolution in one sense that he must believe it in every sense, ^o argument, I think, is necessary to prove that that is not the case. Is it true that what llaeckel believes as to evolu- tion I must likewise believe 'i ]\Iust I believe what Her- bert Spencer and Darwin believe because I have declared that I regard something else as probably true ? So you have been told on this floor; and has it not been proved by quotations from the So uthnwsteni Preshyterian to show that whatever Darwin believes, I also believe ? You have heard seven reasons given, drawn from that source, to prove this assertion, although 1 have kept saying, 'I don't,' 'I don't,' and I say so still, the seven reasons of the Soufhweslerii Preshyterian to the contrary notwithstand- ing. I ask you if it is fair or right to attribute to me views that I utterly disclaim ? I do not say that this is done through either inability to understand or a desire to mis- interpret ; but I ask if it is fair or just that I should be .held responsible for views that I absolutely abhor, and which I have proved over and over again that I do not hold. Moderator, knowing that I had so explicitly re- pudiated all atheistic forms of evolution, I could not but spring to my feet when I heard, two or three days ago, for the first time, that which I had denounced as atheism attributed to me. If I erred in so vehemently repelling the charge, I crave your forgiveness. "Permit me to say that much of the difficulty on this subject arises from the failure to perceive that evolution and scripture do not stand in opposition to each other, when both are correctly understood. There is a similar want of clear perception when it is said that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, are contradictory; cre- ation meaning tlie inunediate calling, by divine power, of something into existence out of non-existence; evolu- tion meaning derivation from previous forms or states by inherent, self-originated or eternal laws, independent of all connection with divine ]iersonal power. Hence, if this CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 513 is correct, those who believe in creation are theists ; those who believe in evolution are atheists. But there is no propriety in thus mingling in the definition two things which are so completely different as the power that pro- duces an effect, and the mode in which the effect is pro- duced. ''Let me illustrate; take an oak for instance. First, observe the acorn. You notice that under the influence of heat and moisture it begins to swell. Then little leaves make their appearance ; then these leaves are repeated and repeated until at last the full-grown oak stands before you. Xow let us inquire what is the religious character of this description of the acorn's being developed into an oak. Do I need to show that in describing this process the idea of God as its author was not of necessity in- troduced '^ In describing the changes from the acorn to the oak I am stating merely the results of observation. I am not then considering the power that has produced the changes. The mere observation of the process or mode by which the acorn becomes an oak does not necessarily tell me whether it is God who is the cause of the change or not. So the observation of cases in which I observe modification during descent does not necessarily tell me anything of the power producing the observed changes. Within the limits of natural science, it is only the natural or the ordinary, that which occurs uniformly, that can rightly be considered. All else the student of natural science would regard as extraordinary or extra-natural, and so beyond his province. If he should speak of the supernatural, he would be going beyond his province. So the idea of God is always present with the theistic evolu- tionist, though he may not express it, while the atheistic evolutionist absolutely denies it. "Speaking of the processes or modes, it is true that a knowledge of them depends on observation, which teaches us nothing of their origin ; but so soon as I have learned from other sources that there is a God ; that there is a being, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in wisdom, power, and all his attributes ; and when I know the rela- tions of this being to the universe, his workmanship, then I perceive that this process of change from acorn to oak is 514 MY LIFE AND TIMES. liis mode of working — tliat everv stc]) in the process is the ^vorking of an almighty and all-wise God. And so when I come as a believer in God to the study of those things which I now begin to call the works of God, I find him jjresent in a way that I had never imagined before. When I look at the qnivering leaf growing nnder the influences of the sunshine and the rain, I see before me God's power ejEfecting the W'Onderful changes that are there taking l^lace; I see the present power of that God directing and guiding its faintest movement. When I see the dew-drop resting on the blade of grass, reflecting from its surface the prismatic hues, I see not proofs of the existence of a distant or absent God ; I see his hand there immediately jiresent, holding the ^^articles together for my delight as one of his ends, causing the Avhite ray of light to be broken up into the marvellous rainbow colors so as to charm the sense of sight: it is God who is doing this be- fore me. As I look abroad upon the operations of nature on a grander scale — when I stand in the presence of the mountain and behold the veil of blinding snow on its summit, I see there the power of God holding particle to particle and producing that which fills my mind with awe; that w^hich expands my soul and gives me a new and an exalted idea of the mighty Creator — not in whom w^e did live, but in whom we now live, and in whom we have our being, wdio is now causing every pulse beat in this wrist, who is now giving me the power to be heard by you. He is a God near at hand ; he is not a God afar off. This, I say, is the Christian's view of God and his relation to his works. Can you imagine, then, if this is true and not a mere fancy, can you imagine that when I^ so believing, speak of evolution, or when any right-think- ing man speaks of it, he is pushing God away and doing that which tends to materialism, or to a blank denial of the existence of the Almighty ( Xeed I now undertake further to prove that evolution is not antagonistic to cre- ation ; that evolution is creation ? ''If anything more is needed, let me ask you again the question which I have heard so frequently during the last day or two, 'Who made you V I do not mean, who made, several ages ago, those from whom you have de- CONTEOVEKSIES OF SCIENCE. 515 scended, but, who made you ? Are you an orphan so far as the Creator of the universe is concerned, or is God your Father and Creator '? Are you going to allow some one to come here and say that because he did not create you im- mediately, he did not create you at all ? i^o ; you have as much claim to him as your Father as Adam had. But did he make you immediately ? Oh ! no, he did not. Yet, for all this, no one is willing to give up his right to say, 'Our Father' and 'our Creator.' Creation is not antago- nistic to our evolution. God may create out of nothing; but so far as the daily operations of his hands are con- cerned, we see that he does not create out of nothing, but out of something that he had previously brought out of nothing. But he is not the less creating before our eyes. There is no antagonism between creation and that mode of creation which we call evolution. "You will now better understand why I should say that I want no change in the expression of the Confession, 'After God had made all other creatures, he created man.' The only difference between us is as to the probable mode of that creation. ''I wish in the next place to call attention to the fact that it has been constantly reiterated that I subordinated scripture to science. The only answer that I have for that statement is that it is not true. I cannot give any explan- ation of the matter except just that. I say that there is not a word that I ever spoke, or wrote, or thought, that would bear that construction ; and any one who has read what I have written ought to know that it is not true. I have always sought to know what the scriptures teach with regard to any matter that I was examining; and Avhen I have found the meaning of the scriptures, I have accepted that as final. I say again that there is not a syllable I ever uttered, or a word I ever spoke, that could even remotely sanction any such construction. When I said that I believed it to be probably true that Adam's body was included in the method of mediate creation, it was only after I had shown that it might not be incon- sistent with the sacred scriptures. [Here a motion was made that the Synod adjourn. Lost by a large majority.] ^'Hastening on as rapidly as I can, and omitting many 516 MY LIFE AND TIIMES. tilings, I will take up a sample of the objections that have been made to my views. 'You are utterly unscientific,' 1 am told, 'in your statement that Adam, as to his body, was derived from boast ancestors.' That is about the way it is put. I do not think that all who use this language mean thereby to excite disgust or contempt towards me. But when I say that Adam, as to his body, may have been a lineal descendant of the higher forms of mammalian life, I believe it because I think it in accord with God's usual plan as I find it in the case of other animals. 'When you come to the soul of Adam, you are guilty of a breach of continuity; and when you come to Eve, instead of be- lieving that she descended from the lower animals, you say that she was created in a supernatural way. There- fore, you are talking nonsense ; you contradict yourself ; jou are doing that which is unscientific ; you are making a muddle and a jumble. Is it not perfectly clear that God made man, male and female, and that he created them in the same way ? You say there are two ways.' "Why do I say so? I say part of what I do because God tells me so plainly in his word ; I say the other part because, his word being silent, he has allowed me to learn its probable truth from a study of his works. I do not be- lieve it unscientific to believe in miracles, or that the Al- mighty God, who chooses to effect certain purposes in one way now, ties himself to that way, and that he can never effect the same purpose in another way. I do not think it unscientific to believe that God can make wine l>y causing the grapes to grow on the vine, and the juice to be expressed and to ferment, and at the same time to believe that he can also make it even better without that which is his ordinary process. If that is making a mud- dle and a jundile, I am satisfied to make it. It may bo making a botch and doing what is very ridiculous to say that while fire ordinarily burns, it does not always burn. I remember a case where fire did not burn. Don't you ? Is that unscientific? If it is, I am content to be un- scientific. Why do I say that there are two different ways as to the crea<:ion of the bodies of Adam and Eve '. Because I find in the Bible no expression which cer- tainly shows the mode of the creation of Adam's body. CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 517 and I do find the mode of the creation of Eve's body and soul clearly set forth. It is not the ordinary way, and therefore it is excluded from evolution. Is that a sub- ordination of the scriptures to science to accept their plain and simple declaration ? Again they say, 'If true science admits of no change or exception, how can you believe that God made the first man '^ If he made our parents in a certain way and their parents in the same way for all time, we will have to keep going back forever before we arrive at the origin.' With regard to that mat- ter I might reply that such an objection might come from a certain kind of so-called science, but I do not see how it can come from a Christian believer. The same objection, if valid, would keep one who believes in the possibility of miracles from believing in any branch of natural science. ''But I wish to say that what is involved in my prob- able belief as to the creation of Adam, has been the belief of the church of Christ from the earliest ages down to the present time as to the creation of each human being. What has been the doctrine of the Reformed churches, with but few exceptions, until very recent times ? What was the prevalent belief in the church before the Refor- mation ? It is that doctrine which is spoken of as 'cre- ationism.' That doctrine represents the body of each human being as derived from its parents by natural gen- eration— as mediately created ; while each soul is im- mediately created, and is imparted to the derived animal body by God's direct power. By one mode or process the animal body is brought into existence, then by an entirely different process the soul is brought into existence and united with the previously formed animal body. This is not, I understand, the doctrine of the professor of The- ology in the Columbia Seminary ; but if you will read any work on theology or church history, you will see that it has always been the widely prevalent belief of the church. And you cannot fail to perceive that this fur- nishes an exact counterpart of the suggestion that Adam's body may have been derived from ancestors, while his soul was immediately created and inbreathed by God. "1 might also call your attention to the wonderful like- 518 MY LIFE AND TIMES. ness that exists between the first Adam and the second Adam. That is to say, in the origin of the one and of the other there has been a mixture of the natural and the supernatural, of creation mediate and immediate. How was it in the incarnation of our adorable Redeemer I He was formed as to his body of the substance of his mother. He grew accordiuo- to the laws of God as in the case of an} other hunum being.- And then, whatever may be true as to the doctrine of creationism, we know that in his case there was superadded that other nature, the nature of the Almighty God. There was plainly that admixture of the natural and the supernatural which is presumed in the hypothesis which I have been inclined to believe as prob- ably true, and which has been held up as only worthy of withering scorn. "Moderator, I am told that in the contest now in progress I stand alone ; that no one stands beside me, or believes with me. ]S"ow, if there is anything for which I yearn, after the love of God and of Jesus Christ my Saviour, it is the love and approbation of the good, the pure, the upright, of those who bear the image of God in their hearts. And I know that isolation is desolation. But if I must stand alone in defence of what I believe to be his truth, I submit to the decree and to the will of my God. I will not be the first who has seemed to stand alone. As I look through the vistas opened before me by the word of God, I see the forms of three who were cast alone into the furnace of fire, heated seven times more than it was wont to be heated. But as I look again, they are not alone, for four are walking in the midst of the fire; and wdien they came forth from that furnace, not even the smell of fire had passed on them. I remember also that when an apostle was once called to stand before Xero, all men forsook him ; luit yet he was not alone. As I look in another direction, I see a form standing- alone, in the presence of a mighty emperor and the princes of the empire, and saying, all alone as he seemed to be, 'With regard to the charges against me, if any man can prove that they are true by the word of God, I will repent and recant ; but until then, here T stand ; I cannot other- wise ; God help me. Amen.' And so stand I. COXTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 519 "In the next place, we are told that evolution is to be rejected because it is born of atheism. It is said that many atheists hold the doctrine of evolution, and there- fore it is not true. Darwin was not an atheist, but at the same time he was not a believer in Ohristianitv. But how does that affect the truth of evolution ^ On the other hand, we know that there are many others who believe in evolution who are not atheists. If others say it leads to atheism, I say it does not ; and I content myself with pronoimcing their proposition an 'unverified hypothesis.' "Then you are told that it assigns a beastly origin to man. Well, we need not be so proud. We have bodies exactly like the beasts, if you choose to call them so. Our muscles are arranged in the same way. The heart beats in the dog just as it beats in me. His legs are made like mine and like my arms. He has a brain in his skull and a spinal marrow. He digests as I do. He does every- thing in the same way. Again, as to our instincts being- shocked, what is there in red clay that is so much more noble than the most highly organized form God had made up to the time of Adam ? You have only the choice be- tween red clay and the highest and best thing that was produced by the power of God up to the time of man's existence. And if your decision is to be controlled by your prejudices and your instincts and your feelings, let me ask you, Moderator, how do you like to think that the negro is your brother ? Is your instinct shocked by that ? Will you follow instincts in one case and not follow them in another ? "Without dwelling longer on that point, let me call your attention to an objection urged against the theory as to man's body. We are told that, according to the re- ceived interpretation of the scriptures, he was made of inorganic dust. (Of course, when I say that man's body may have been made of organic dust, I mean God may have chosen to derive man's body from a previously ex- isting animal form.) You are told that the idea of mediate creation is precluded by the received interpreta- tion of the Bible. Well, it is not precluded by anything said in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as we have already seen. Outside our standards, I suppose that 520 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. some of the most widely 'prevailiiii;- and recognized views^ of the meaning- of the seriptnres are set forth in the little Catechism, already frequently quoted during this dis- cussion. What is said there on this subject ^ Let us see. 'Who made you V ^God.' Did he make you mediately or immediately ? I suppose you would say, God did not make me immediately, but mediately, through my an- cestors. 'Of what did he make you f 'Of the dust of the ground.' Mediately or immediately ? Now, if you say it w^as mediate in the one case, why may you not at least say it may have been mediate in the other ? In Ec- clesiastes xii. 7, we learn that each one of us is made of the dust of the earth ; and yet each one of us has come from a long line of ancestors. But that language is figur- ative, you say ; and it is true, as has been said on this floor, that every figure must have its literal basis. Now^, you say that the basis for the figure is to be found in the fact that Adam's body was formed of the literal dust of the ground. How do you know that ? Suppose I say you may go back a generation or so farther for the basis of the figure, wdiy not ? According to your own exegesis, you can go back from yourself to Adam. Why can't you go back a step farther and farther, until you reach the very beginning of all organic life, when inorganic matter was organized and vivified ? If you may go back to Adam for the basis of your figure, what right have you to say that I must stop there, and may not go still farther in search of the true basis ? What right have you to say that I shall stop at any particular place ?" At this point, another motion was made to adjourn, which, a division being had, w^as lost. "j^ext, let me call your attention to the formidable ob- jection urged by Mr. Pratt, derived from the genealogy of the Saviour as it is presented in the third chapter of the gospel according to St. Luke: 'Which w^as the son of Methusaleh, which was the son of Enoch. . . . which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.' jSTow, let us read that genealogy in accordance with the interpreta- tion which Mr. Pratt has insisted on, and wouldn't it be : 'Which was the son of Adam, which was the son of — ' what ? Of what shall I say ? Go back to the Catechism, CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 521 what is the substance of which Adam was made ? If it is true that a belief that Adam's body may have been de- rived from previously existing animal forms requires you to read, as you have been told, 'Which was the son of Adaiu, which was the son of a beast,' is it not equally true that Mr. Pratt's belief requires you to read, 'Which was the son of red clay V Is that the way in which you would reason 'i Well, it is not the way. Moderator, in which I would reason. You know, and it would seem that every- body must know, that this genealogy cannot have the remotest bearing on the question as to how it pleased God to form the body of Adam. Would Adain be less the son of God if God formed him of one substance rather than another ? Our venerable friend [Dr. Frierson] tells us that we are not certain about the meaning of anything contained in the Bible. Still I am persuaded that my friend and I would agToe as to tJie meaning of this geneal- ogy, that going back step by step we at length come to the first great Cause, the God and Father of us all, the om- nipresent and almighty God, the source of all being; the f ramer of Adam's body and the Father of his spirit ; and, through him, of all his descendants to the latest genera- tion." At 12:15 o'clock Dr. Woodrow, having been speaking steadily and holding the close attention of his audience since 7 :30 o'clock, closed, and announced that he was exhausted, and could not resume until morning. A mo- tion was made to adjourn, which was carried, Dr. Wood- row having the floor. ISText evening (the morning having been devoted to re- plies to his remarks). Dr. Woodrow resuming the argu- ment, said : "Moderator, you need not be at all alarmed at this formidable array of books, for I do not intend to read them to you. I had intended to read extracts from them on certain points ; for example, from this work by President Schmid, to show who are evolutionists ; but I think probably it is not necessary. I had also intended to read an extract or two from this work on The Origin of the World, by the anti-evolutionist. Principal Dawson, to show that in some important particulars the views of the author correspond precisely with those set forth in my 522 MY LIFE AND TIMES. address. I had intonded to read from Guyot's book on Creation, to show that his teachings upon points touching the scriptures are identical with niino; and that whilo 1 do not know what his views were with regard to cvohition, yet that is a matter of entire indifference, for ho has dis- tinctly set forth in the work that the question, so far as evolution is concerned (within the limits of my defini- tion), is an entirely open one. I had intended to read from Truths and Untruths of Evolution, by the Rev. Dr. Drury, lecturer before the Theological Seminary of the Dutch Reformed Church, for the purpose of showing the strong support the theory received from those high in that church ; and particularly from the teachings of one of his predecessors in the lectureship, the learned Tayler Lewis, who, notwithstanding the fact that he was an avowed anti-evolutionist, maintained that it was perfectly consistent with the scriptures to entertain the views of the theory which I do, and of evolution in all the various directions which I point out. But I shall not burden you with all this. Nor shall I read to you a letter which I have in my pocket from the professor of Theology in the Allegheny Theological Seminary [Rev. Dr. S. H. Kel- logg], in which he makes it appear that in all the scrip- tural points involved his views are identical in every par- ticular with mine. I may say, however, while on this point, wath regard to the chairs of theology, that evolu- tion is discussed by every professor of theology in the Presbyterian Church, whether North or South ; and there is a good deal about it in the text-book used by the profes- sor of Theology in the Columbia Theological Seminary. I am not singular, therefore, you will observe. Moderator, in my course." "It has been charged that my ])rinci]ile of interpreta- tion makes out of the scripture a nose of wax." He read from the Confession tlie princi])les of interpretation he had taught. "All things in scripture are not plain to all, but whatever concerns the i)lan of salvation is so plain and clear that all can know it. The infallible rule for the in- terpretation of scripture is scripture itself. I have never taught anything else. The inference of the minority re- port is not only that there is a higher and better sense of CONTROVERSIES OF SCIEISrCE. 523 scripture than that contained in the standards, but that when there is in the standards that which a teacher or preacher does not believe, he is still bound to preach and teach it!" Dr. Woodrow proceeded : "I am charged with a distinct offence. I could have been and should have been tried be- fore the presbvtery or Board of Directors. I therefore proves what he never had the remotest idea of doinc;, and authorizes his teaching- in "a })urely expository manner" — the only way in wdiich he ever has taught science in the Seminary, viz., expounding it and showing its connection with revelation. Proceedings of the Synod of Georcua. This body met at Marietta, Gra., October 29th. There were present forty-seven ministers and forty-six ruling elders. The subject of evolution was taken u]) tlie next day and referred to a committee^ of (deven. Majority and minority reports were brought in as f(dlows : The Rev. Dr. Stricklcr submitted for the majority the following resolutions : CONTKOVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 527 1. The action of the Board of Directors of Columbia Theological Seminary in permitting the teaching of evolution as contained in Dr. Woodrow's address be disapproved. 2. The Synod is entirely unwilling that this theory shovild be tauglit in that Seminary, and hereby, as one of the controlling Synods of that Seminary, directs the board to take whatever steps may be necessary to prevent it. Tlie minoi'itv report, submitted by Hon. Clifford An- derson, was as follows : Resolved, 1. That, inasmuch as the hypothesis of evolution con- cerning the earth, the lower animals and the body of man, as ad- vanced by the professor of Natural Science in connection with Reve- lation, is a purely scientific and extra-scriptural hypothesis, the church, as such, is not called upon to make any deliverance con- cerning its truth or falsity. 2. That, in view of the deep interest in this matter experienced by all, and the fears experienced by some lest this doctrine of evolution should become an article of church faith, the Synod deems it ex- pedient to say that the church, being set for the defence of the gospel and the promulgation of scriptural doctrines, can never without transcending her proper sphere incorporate into our Con- fession of Faith any of the hypotheses, theories or systems of hu- man science. 3. That, while the presentation of the hypothesis of evolution in relation to Scripture falls necessarily within the scope of the duties pertaining to the Perkins Professorship, nevertheless neither this nor any other scientific hypothesis, is, or can be, taught in our The- ological Seminary as an article of church faith. But we see no objection to its being demonstrated, as it has been done by Professor Woodrow, that the hypothesis of evolution as defined by him is not contradictory of the teachings of the word of God. 4. That, in view of the above considerations, the Synod sees no sufficient reason to interfere with the present order of our Theo- logical Seminary as determined by the Board of Directors. T give the debate as reported in tlie Atlanta Constitu- tion paper, being, however, obliged to omit some of the speeclies, and to shorten them all. Dr. Boggs's speech ap- pears as revised by himself, and I specially omit nearly all that Dr. Woodrow said, because he was so fully re- ported in the Greenville debate. Dr. Striekler, replying to Dr. Woodrow, said this was the first time he had ever engaged in the discussions of a 528 MY LIFE AND TIMES. synod. "Dr. ^Voo(ll■ow has presented ns a great array of scientists who believe in evolution. But these scientists cannot find the point where one species passes out of an- other. Not only must they find that point, but also where one genus is evolved out of another. How far must we follow the scientists in this matter ? We cannot follow most of them far, or we will drift into atheism. It is time for us to cry a halt when we find this theory infringing on the declaration of God's word. I think Dr. Woodrow has reached that point in his teaching on this question. This doctrine brings odium on our religion. The idea of evo- lution is horrible to thousands of people, just as you, sir, say it was once horrible to you. Dr. Woodrow refers to the animal food that we eat, and draws from that an analogy which I do not think will hold good. It is not the thought of brute matter in our bodies. We all know that to be true. But we shrink from the thought that we evolved from the brute and retained the brute nature. This theory is unchristian. It had its birth in enmity to Christianity. It was fostered and formulated by such men as Darwin and Huxley, enemies to our faith. Its advocates use it to prove the non-existence of God. They go back through the long stages of evolution until they come to the one atom from which the modern evolutionist declares he could evolve a world. When they get to that one little atom they come to the conclusion that there is no use of a God just to do so little as that. If you believe that, we had better put upon the banner of our faith an animal, and that animal an ape. You had better write the obituary of the church. If you teach this doctrine, you cripple me and every one of us who tries to preach the word of God." Dr. Strickler added : "Even if we could prove this theory, we ought to steer clear of it when the teaching of it would do so much injury." He then referred to the condemnation of evolution by the Synods of Memphis, Tennessee, and Kentucky. "And what did the Synod of South Carolina do? I am at liberty," he said, "to read a telegram which has been received here." He then read one from Dr. Girardeau, stating that the action of the South Carolina Synod was not a compromise, but "dis- CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 529 tinctly and intentionally anti-Woodrow." ''How far is Dr. Woodrow going in tke direction of evolution. At first lie thought the theory absolutely false. He then thought it only false. Gradually it grew upon him, until he now believes it probably true. He is on the march; where will he stop ? He has made pretty rapid progress, and is still on the march. But the minority report says evolution can never go into our creed. Suppose it cannot, what difference does it make if it goes into the heads of our preachers and is taught ? Venerable men have said to me that if we declare this theory consistent with our faith, we will unsettle them. The style of interpretation which makes the word of God to harmonize with this theory is a dangerous method of exegesis." Dr. Strickler continued: ''The Perkins professorship was established to evince the harmony between science and religion. But Dr. Woodrow says that is an unattain- able end. Do' you suppose Judge Perkins ever would have made this princely gift if he had supposed it would have been used to upset our cherished belief, derived from a reading of the scriptures in their purity 'i We are bound to respect the object for which this bequest was made. It will not do to say that if Judge Perkins were alive and up with modern science, he would not object to such a use of his money. We take a will into the courts and sacredly observe its provisions ; and here we are confronted with the question whether we are not only failing to use this money for the purpose intended by the donor, but whether we have not really turned the bequest to the use of disproving just what it was intended to prove." Rev. Dr. W. E. Boggs, professor of Church History and Polity in the Columbia Seminary, took the floor, saying in substance : "The Synod has been listening to a very earnest speech from his honored brother. Dr. Strick- ler, It was evident that the Doctor's intention is good. His faith in his opinions is very strong. But his logic is very weak, in that it substitutes the vehement reasser- tion of mere human opinions as to the meaning of the Bible, whereas the accuracy of those very uninspired opinions is the matter under discussion. Some of these 530 MY LIFE AND TIMES. Iniman opinions as to the meanino- of texts are very re^ spectable. But they are also quite ancient, being formed by good and true men before the new light about God's works had been vouchsafed to mankind. Now, therefore, to reassert those venerable opinions is to beg the question. Our only safe plan is to re-exainine God's infallible word calmly, dispassionately, with any new light now given us. Not to do so is like Luther's discussion with Zwingli, ■when he kept writing on the talde, 'Hoc est corpus meuin; Hoc est corpus nieuiti/ whereas the meaning of those same words was the matter under discussion." The speaker then alluded to Dr. Woodrow's devotion to the church ; to his faithful and eminent services ; to his Scottish ancestors who had not refused their blood in the defence of Christ's crown and covenant. Speaking of the telegram from Dr. Girardeau, which asserted that the recent action by the South Carolina Synod was "distinctly anti-Woodrow," he wished to say that while entertaining profound regard for his absent colleague, he felt free to form his own opinions as to that action, and to do so in view of all the facts in the case. Dr. Girardeau undoubtedly believed the action to be "anti-Woodrow," but what are the facts ? The majority re])ort to the synod, heartily endorsing Dr. Woodrow's methods of dealing with evolution, was rejected by a vote of forty-four yeas to fifty-two nays ; but the minority report, which disapproved of his teaching, had also been rejected by the same vote exactly — forty-four to fifty-two. Then a paper was introduced, prescribing the manner in which synod wished Dr. Woodrow to handle evolution. "If the facts do not show mutual concessions and an hon- orable compromise, I am wholly in error. But these are the facts. Let them speak. "Dr. Strickler asks, ITow far are we to follow Darwin ? Surely all of us understand that it is ])ossible to agree with Darwin in some of his scientific teachings, while reject- ing and abhorring his religious opinions. Surely we see that a Christian might consider evolution to indicate God's way of diversifying the types of animals and plants on the earth. That is to say, such a Christian scientist might believe that God occasionally employs natural birth CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 5-jl to introduce a new form of life. Darwin's science is one matter, and his religions beliefs or disbeliefs are anotlier. Aristotle was a heathen, yet Dr. Strickler does not scru- ple to use Aristotle's rules of logic in the preparation of his excellent sermons. All the world is supposed to know that Darwin was descended from an unbelieving family. The evidence shows that he was an unbeliever long before he discovered those 'laws' or principles which, as he thought, proved 'descent wnth modification.' ISTeither his father nor his grandfather was acquainted with the 'laws' of evolution discovered by Darwin, yet they were unbe- lievers. "Dr. Strickler is inclined to deny, on what he deems good authority, that evolution is taught at Clarksville. Xow, I see in the official catalogue of that University that LeConte's Geology is a text-book. I know that book. I love its distinguished author. He was my teacher in col- lege, and afterwards he was a consistent member of the church of which I was pastor. At my request he taught with great ability a Bible-class for young men. He has not surrendered his faith in Christ ; but his geology is an evolutionistic book from cover to cover ! So is Dana's Geology, also in the catalogue, l^ow, will some one tell me how such books can be used without teaching evolu- tion ? Our brethren will be in a dilemma, too, if they change their text-books. They will either be compelled to give up geology, or to use text-books that are out of date. "Dr. Robert Flint, the ablest man in Scotland perhaps, who now fills the chair of Theology in the University of Edinburgh, follows exactly the same course as is taken by Dr. Woodrow. In his able book on "Theism" he argues with consummate ability to show that all of Dar- win's 'laws of evolution,' 'heredity,' 'variability,' 'over- production with struggle for existence,' 'natural selection with survival of the fittest' — ^each and all of these 'laws,' or 'uniformities,' demand for rational explanation Infi- nite Wisdom. He is careful to add that, while opposing and rejecting Darwin's theology, he has nothing to say against Darwin's science. ]\[y brethren on the other side of this question are good men, but I believe Dr. Flint's course the wiser. 532 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. "This plan (of detecting the false theology which is mingled with other elements in theories intended by their authors to be used against Christianity and refuting the theology) is also followed by Farrar — not the dean of that name — in his ^Bampton Lectures.' So much is Dr. Woodrow's plan like that pursued in Farrar's Critical History of Free Thought that I was surprised when he told me that he had never read that masterly defence of Christianity. I have been accustomed to place the volume in the hands of friends troubled with religious doubts. Again and again havie I been told that they consider it among the ablest defences of religion. I say again that this plan is wiser than the one which we are advised to follow here." The speaker said that he desired in the most emphatic way to testify before all to the great personal benefit re- ceived from Dr. Woodrow's method of dealing with diffi- cult questions of interpretation. "First, I knew him as my teacher in the Seminary, then as an older brother when I was pastor to his family, and now as my senior col- league in the Theological Seminary. A more reverent, believing student and teacher of God's holy word," said he, "I have never known. I believe that none living ex- ceed him in devotion to God's word and our Confession of Faith. He has told us how carefully, how long, how pa- tiently, he has studied the question now before you ; how he has withheld decision until sufficient light has come. For doing so he has been blamed on this floor — I think, wrongly. He is cautious by nature. The scientific mind is cautions in forming opinions. And what shall we say to this believing, prudent scholar — this student both of nature and the Bible? Can we tell him that we know better than he does ? Have we studied the difficult sub- ject for years and years as he has studied it ? Brethren, I hope we will go slowly in matters of this sort. The church has compromised herself again and again by haste in such matters, and in so doing she has unintentionally ruined souls whom she greatly desired to save. Let us think well before we close Dr. Woodrow's lips, lest men be tempted into thinking that there is a conflict between science and the Bible." COJSTTROVKKSIES OF SCIENCE. 533 Attorney-General Clifford Anderson referred to the legal question raised by Dr. Strickler. He read the deed, and said the regulation of the professorship was wholly in the discretion of the directors of the Seminary. He saw not the slightest legal difficulty in the way. He said the question of vital importance was not whether evolution was true or false, but whether it is contrary to the word of God. Some brethren insist that Ave must settle this scientific question, but the church has no more right to settle a question of science than a question in politics. We cannot treat scripture literally always, or we would be compelled to say that the world was made in six days of twenty-four hours each. "Is the language that man is made of dust any plainer than that which tells us that the sun stood still when Joshua commanded it ? A comparison of this passage with others, according to our admitted rule, will show that it is not literal dust that is spoken of. I care nothing for evolution. I am only con- cerned about the upholding of God's word, and I am not much concerned about that. Why ? Because I know that God's word will stand anyway. I am ready to say to science: Do what you can; God's word will remain. I am not in favor of teaching evolution, but I do want the Perkins Professor to teach the relation between religion and science. The church, if it closes his mouth, will con- fess that it cannot grapple with these great questions. If science discovers new truths, it is his duty to examine them. We are not afraid. Christ is our Captain, and the Bible our guide." On motion, the Synod resolved to limit the further de- bate to three hours. Dr. Woodrow to have one. Dr. Clisby one, and Dr. Strickler one. Rev. Dr. Clisby said : "What are you going to do ? If you silence your professor, do you think you can silence the inquiries that are being made everywhere on this sub- ject ? When your students ask him how they shall meet these inquiries when they go out to preach, he -can only say, "^I cannot tell you, my mouth is closed.' Will you change your professor ? What good will that do, when you have seen that the almost unanimous verdict of men capable of filling his ehair is, that Dr. Woodrow is right ? 53-i MY LIFE AND TIMEfe. As a last resort, will you abolish the professorship ? Then science will say, you dare not meet us. You were brave enough when the battle was in the dim realm of nietajdiysics ; now that it is transferred to the clear lield of physics, you have beaten an inglorious retreat. Athe- istic science ! We are warned that we must not add to the word of God, but remember that it is a two-edged respon- sibility. If we declare that God has spoken as to the motle of his creation where he has not, we are as guilty as if we said he has not spoken where he has." Professor Woodrow rose and amid the profoundest silence said : ''JMr. Moderator, in declining the privilege, if that is what you call it, which you have extended to me to occupy one hour of your time, I desire to express my profound appreciation for the words of affection, of con- fidence and of admiration with which most of the speeches you have heard have superabounded. The admiration I do not deserve. I claim no originality for the discovery of the true or for the discovery of the false. I wish to say, in regard to the frequent assertion of my not being on trial, that while it is true I stand here as one of you, yet it is a shame and an outrage that I can say, in fact and in truth, that I am on trial, but without the safeguard thrown around me that I had a right to expect. Here, months after I have been accused of doing that which is against our standards, I am unchallenged l)y any form of legal proceedings. There are two tribiuials to which I am amenable, and although these charges are constantly reiterated, they are not put in such a form that I can de- mand the proof. They are false ; and I charge that, from this time forth, if any presbyter throughout the church shall bring such accusation in other than the due form, he must stand convicted as a slanderer. I demand a trial. You may go on and try me and condemn ine by in- direction if you will, but I appeal to God against such injustice." Rev. Dr. Strickler said : ''I deny that the Synod is at- tempting to arraign itself against science. Dr. Woodrow ought to teach science, but he should teach it only to the point where it begins to impinge on the word of God, and no further. In our view, his teaching on evolution passes COI^TEOVEKSIES OF SCIENCE. 535 that point. He may teach all the science he knows about evolution or any other science up to the point I have indicated. We are not willing as our agent he shall say that evolution is 'probably true.' Does he teach evolution '( That question was asked this afternoon by a brother who requested a categorical answer. 'No answer was given him. If Dr. Woodrow does not teach evolution, is it not easy to tell us so 'i I wnll pause if any one knows the fact that he does not. Dr. Woodrow's theory is inconsistent with the statement that we read so clearly, that God made man out of the dust of the earth. If the Bible had meant to tell us that man was made out of inorganic dust, how could it have put it any plainer than that ? We have been told the opinions of a great number of experts in science. There are experts in language as well as in science. They have studied the meaning of this passage, and I do not hud any difference between them. They all say dust means dust. The ex])erts of science are brought out of their sphere into this held, and put against the experts in language, to find a new meaning for these words. I said that I did not know any scientific man wdio agreed with Dr. Woodrow on this question. I did not trust my own knowledge on this question, but Dr. Adams and I sent this telegram to Sir William Dawson to ascertain what he knew about it: 'Do you know any evolutionists who be- lieve simply that Adam was evolved, but that Eve was cre- ated from Adam's rib. If so, how many V To-day we received an answer. Sir William Dawson telegraphs as follows: 'Don't know any one avoiding the text difficulty in that way.' "The Perkins professorship was founded to evince the harmony of science and God's word. Dr. Woodrow tells us harmony is unattainable. He goes so far, I think, as to say that it is folly to seek for harmony. The conse- quences of this teaching must be disastrous to the Sem- inary. The Synods of ISTashvillc', of Memphis, of Ken- tucky, have withdrawn from its support, and the Synod of South Carolina, right at its home, is seriously alien- ated from it. No one of our church courts has acted which has not condemned it. Give him permission to teach this thing, and in a short while there will be nobody 536 MY LIFE AND TIMES. there to teach. The First Presbyterian Church of At- lanta, one of our most important churches, has declared that it will not give a cent to Education until this question is settled. Other churches will do likewise. They do not want this theory taught there. You have many large subscriptions for your Seminary. If you sanction this theory, you will probably have to sue for most of them in the civil courts." At the conclusion of Dr. Strickler's remarks the ques- tion was put on the adoption of the majority report and resulted: ayes, sixty; nays, twenty. Protest. — A protest against this action, signed by ten of the members, was presented, and allowed to go to record. The grounds of the protest were threefold: (1), That this action defeats the very purpose for which the Perkins chair was established; (2), That it was in violation of the constitution of the Seminary, inasmuch as synod at- tempts to control the action of the board in matters en- trusted to that body by the constitution; (3), That it was a virtual condemnation of the Perkins Professor without according him a trial by the board, as provided in the constitution of the Seminary. Reply. — The Committee on the Seminary was ap- pointed to prepare a reply. In their reply the committee affirm: (1), That Synod does not propose to prevent the teaching of science in Columbia Seminary, but only the teaching of evolution as contained in the address of Pro- fessor Woodrow; (2), That the action was not unconsti- tutional, as the constitution accords the Synod the power of controlling the Seminary through the board; (3), That its action has particular reference to the Board of Directors, and that the condemnation of Professor Wood- row was only incidental. The other two controlling Synods of Alabama and South Georgia and Florida held their annual meeting shortly after the Synod of Georgia. I have no means of reporting the debates in these two last named synods ; l)nt I am able to state that they also voted to instruct the board respecting Dr. Woodrow's views as the other con- trolline svnods had done. CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 537 A Meeting of the Board. On the 10th of December, 1884, the Board of Directors again met. To a large extent, it was composed of new members. A paper was j^resented at this meeting, refer- ring in detail to the action of the fonr synods regarding Dr. Woodrow's address, and their specific directions to the board to prevent his giving such instructions in the Seminary as agreed with that address ; and referring also to Dr. Woodrow as having announced that if he continued to be their professor, he would hereafter teach as probably true the hypothesis of evolution. The paper then called for the appointment of a committee to wait on Dr. Wood- row and ask for his resignation. This paper was adopted by vote — ayes, eight ; noes, four. Dr. Woodrow stated, in his written reply, that he had no desire to continue to teach in the name and by the authority of the synods which control the Seminary, since they had expressed disapprobation of his views ; but yet he was constrained respectfully to decline to offer his res- ignation, for the reason that he would thereby acquiesce in, and so to some extent recognize, the justice and right- fulness of the action of the synods on which they based their request, which he regarded as illegal in form and incorrect in fact. The Professor continued : "The resolutions adopted by three of the synods, to which you refer, condemn with greater or less clearness my teaching as unscriptural and contrary to our standards, and this condemnation has been expressed without judicial investigation, by which alone such matters can be authoritatively determined. I hold, on the other hand, that my teachings, so far as they are ex- positions of the sacred scriptures, accord perfectly in every particular with the teachings of the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms ; and so far as they relate to natural science, do not on any point contradict the sacred scrip- tures as interpreted in our standards. In view of these facts, I respectfully ask that you proceed to determine the questions as to my alleged incompetence and unfaithful- ness in teaching what is contrary to the sacred scriptures as interpreted in our standards, by a full trial, as is pro- 538 MY LIFE AND TIMES. vided in the constitution of the Seminary, Section 2, Arti- cle 11." The paper adopted by the board was : Inasmuch as the Rev. Dr. -James VVoodrow, Perkins Professor, has declined to appear before the Board of Directors to show cause why he should not be removed from his professorship; and, inas- much as he has already had a full hearing in person before three of the Synods, and through his friends and advocates before the fourth Synod; and, inasmuch as these Synods have already condemned his views and teachings on the subject of evolution; and, inasmuch as, in his reply to the committee appointed to wait upon him. Dr. Woodrow declares his unwillingness to tender his resignation, there- fore. Resolved, 1. That he be, and hereby is, removed from his pro- fessorship, according to the authority given this board. (See Con- stitution, Sec. 2, Art. 11 and 13.) 2. That the secretary be directed to officially notify Dr. Woodrow of this action. The articles in the constitution referred to are : Article 11. — The Board of Directors shall have power to remove from his office any professor who shall be found unfaithful in his trust, or incompetent to the discharge of his duties. Should his continuance in office be thought highly injurious or dangerous, the board may suspend him temporarily until his case can be fully tried; but all these acts shall be reported to the Synods, and be subject to their approval, as in Article 5. Article 13. — The board shall further make all rules and regula- tions, and generally do whatever they deem for the welfare of the Seminary, provided it shall not be repugnant to this Constitution, the orders of the Synods, or the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church. Thus, without being lawfully ciharged with the com- mission of any offence, without the legal trial provided for in the constitution, he was found guilty, condemned, sen- tenced to deposition from office. The board adjourns to meet again on January 28, 1885, at Augusta, Ga. On the 20th of December, Dr. Woodrow wa-ites to them, and forwards to be read at their meeting notice that he intended to appeal to the associated synods, not that he might be restored to office, for that he did not desire. COXTEOVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 539 but that in reviewing the board's action, they may order the trial which has hitherto been refused. It now became the duty of the four synods controlling the Seminary to consider this action at their approaching meeting, and to decide whether or not it was in accordance with the constitution. A.N"OTiiER Meeting of the Board. Precisely one year after this dismissal of Dr. Woodrow from his professorship, the Board of Directors met again in the Seminary Chapel at Columbia on the 10th of De- cember, 1885. All the members of the board were pres- ent, several being new members, in place of some wdiose terms had expired. The meeting commenced at 9 :30 the morning of the 10th, and continued in session, with brief intervals for dinner and supper, until 1:30 on the morn- ing of the 11th. Then they took a recess until 9 :30 a. m., and continued in session until noon of the 11th, when they finally adjourned. Evidently their discussions were warm. The Charleston News and Courier of December 12th published a brief, but sufficiently complete, report of the proceedings of this meeting, which I make use of just as it appeared. The matter of chief interest before the board was the Woodrow case. At the opening of the session a paper was adopted which recognized Dr. Woodrow as still the legal incumbent of the Perkins chair of Natural Science as applied to religion. In view of the fact that the action of the Synods had nullified the effort last year to remove him, the treasurer was instructed to pay him his salary for the past year, as he was held to have been in office during that time. He was requested to state to the board whether or not he would comply, in his teachings, with the orders of the Synods last year, prohibiting the teaching of his views of evolution in the Sem- inary. The paper" embracing these three heads, the recognition of his possession of the chair, the order to have his salary paid, and the inquiry as to his compliance with the requirements of the Synods, was adopted by a vote of seven to six, the South Carolina and Florida directors voting solidly for it, and the Georgia and Alabama members being equally solid against it. Pending the con- sideration of this paper, a resolution had been presented as a sub- stitute, declaring that, inasmuch as two of the four Synods con- trolling the Seminary had approved his removal and withdrawn 540 MY LIFE AND TIMES. their endorsement of him, he was constitutionally disqualified. This was rejected, six votes being cast for and seven against it. In reply to the resolution adopted, Dr. Woodrow stated that he would abide by the instructions of the Synods. Immediately after this reply was received, a resolution was adopted by a vote of eight to five, requesting Dr. Woodrow to resign in order to stop the agitation, and promote the highest interests of the Seminary. This resolution was dispatched to Dr. Woodrow at about midnight. He replied that he did not see his way clear to answer the request at present. Various resolutions were then presented by the minority in order to efltect his removal. One was to declare the Perkins chair vacant, and another to suspend him from his professorship until his trial before the Augusta Presbytery should have reached a decision. But they were all voted down by the inexorable seven to six on consti- tutional grounds. At 1:30 a recess was taken. When the board met, at 9:30 A. M., a protest was presented by the minority, which was entered on the minutes and duly answered by the majority. Before the board ad- journed the members constituting the minority asked to be excused from any further participation in the proceedings of the board. It is stated that they prophesied the destruction of the Seminary, threatened the withdrawal of the Georgia and Alabama Synods, and predicted that many students would at once leave the Seminary. There are only about twenty left. The members of the majority say that by their action they felt that they were conforming to the Constitution of the Seminary and the direction of the Synods. They expect a continuance of the agi- tation against Dr. Woodrow and a bitter struggle. It was supposed that the minority were opposing evolution and not Dr. Woodrow, but that the antipathy extends to the Perkins Professor seems to be established by the fact that, when he agreed not to teach evolution, they still opposed him as vehemently as ever. The majority insist that the minority could reach Dr. Woodrow by presenting charges against him, but that no formal accusation looking to a trial was made against him, although it was invited. To an unecclesiastical mind the situation appears to be this: The Synods forbid Dr. Woodrow to teach his theory of evolution. He agrees that he will not do so, but proposes to solve the problem by not teaching anything whatever on the subject. The Anti-W^oodrow people are not content with this, but desire that the professor shall expound evolution to the disadvantage of the theory. It is alto- gether improbable that he will stultify himself by doing so. Dr. Woodrow expects to resume his duties at once. He went to the Seminary to-day to meet the students and have his rooms prepared. controversies of sciexce. 541 Evolution in the General Assembly. The evolution controversy having agitated not only the four controlling synods, but a number of other synods and presbyteries during the whole of the years 1884 and 1885, now passes into the General Assembly of 1886, which was to meet in the city of Augusta. There are seven pres- byteries which send up overtures to that Assembly, calling its attention in one form or another to this subject. Im- mediately after the election of the Moderator and Tem- porary Clerks, the resolution offered by the Rev. Dr. George D. Armstrong was unanimously adopted, calling on the Moderator to appoint a special committee upon overtures from several presbyteries which had been pub- lished as on the way to this Assembly. The Moderator appointed a committee of thirteen, of which Dr. Arm- strong was chairman. On the fourth day of the Assembly's proceedings the consideration of papers from the Special Committee on Evolution was begun, the majority report of the com- mittee being as follows : To the several overtures on the subject of the evolution of man sent up by the presbyteries, the General Assembly returns answer as follows, viz. : The church remains at this time sincerely convinced that the Scriptures, as truly and authoritatively expounded in our Confes- sion of Faith and Catechisms, tej^ch — That Adam and Eve were created, body and soul, by immediate acts of Almighty power, thereby preserving a perfect race unity; That Adam's body was directly fashioned by Almighty God, with- out any natural animal parentage of any kind, out of matter pre- viously created from nothing; And that any doctrine at variance therewith is a dangerous error, inasmuch as, in the metliods of interpreting Scripture, it must de- mand, and, in the consequences which by fair implication it will involve, it will lead to the denial of doctrines fundamental to the faith. Geo. D. Armstrong, Chairman. Wm. F. Juxkin, R. K. Smoot, G. B. Stricklee, L. C. Vass,- A. N. HOLLIFIELD, ]\I. Van Lear, R. P.. Fulton, D. N. Kennedy. 542 MY LIFE AND TIMES. Kev. T. E. Smith, for himself and William Flinn,. D. D., members of that committee, presented a minority report, which is as follows : We, the undersigned members of the Special Committee on Evo- lution, recommend that the General Assembly decline to make a deliverance on the subject: 1. Because the answer which is invoked by those overtures, if given, would violate our Constitution (vide Confession of Faith, Chap, xxxi., p. 4) . 2. Because the word of God, as interpreted by our standards, gives the faith of the church. 3. Because before one of our lower courts a concrete case is pending involving the matter of these overtures. Wm. Flinn, Theo. E. Smith. Also the following paper was presented by the Rev. F.. L. Fergnson, another member of the committee : The undersigned member of your Committee on Overtures ore Evolution would recommend the appointment of a special committee to draft a pastoral letter to the churches and presbyteries of the As- sembly, embodying the following points: 1. A recognition of the alarm and uneasiness pervading the church on account of the evolution discussion, and that this alarm and un- easiness are not unfounded. 2. A reiteration of our loyalty to the symbols as the correct inter- pretation of the Holy Scriptures and determination to defend them against any interpretation which would mar their historic sense or contradict any traditional doctrine of our faith. 3. The original application of the law contained therein belongs to the presbyteries, and the Assembly considers them competent for their functions ; neither would it usurp or forestall this function, nor hamper them in its performance by granting any in thesi de- liverance whicli could be construed into an anticipatory exposition of the law, but could not be of binding force. 4. The Assembly assures its presbyteries that the highest court of the church will be ready, at the proper time, to uphold and endorse any judicial action of the presbyteries founded on the constitutional law of the church. (Signed) Francis L. Ferguson. A motion to adopt the majority report was snperseded by a motion to substitute the report of the minority. The reading of these papers was called for, after which the discussion upon the majority report was opened by Eev. Dr. G. D. Armstrong, it being first agreed that Dr. CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 543 Woodrow, who was a member of the Assembly, should have two hours to present his views, and those Avho fa- vored the minority reports should have two hours more ; that afterward those who favored the majority report should have three hours to present their view^s, and that the chairman might have half an hour to conclude. Dr. Armstrong said the question before the Assembly came in due form and order, that is, on overtures from sundry presbyteries. "When we want a clear-cut decision from the highest court it is best obtainable by overtures. When matters come up in judicial form, they are apt to be encumbered with side issues, and it is difRcult to get a clear-cut decision. It is said it may hereafter come be- fore us in judicial form, but of that we are not assured." Dr. Woodrow rose and said: ''Proceedings have been actually begun and the indictment served." Dr. Armstrong replied : "Well, suppose the judicial case should reach us, it will certainly be complicated with other matters. We are told that the synods which have charge of the Cohnnbia Seminary have a deep interest in this question, and a judicial process against Dr. Wood- row is already begun in the Augusta Presbytery. Let the disturbed synods settle it their own way, but outside of these synods we have a question to settle. Overtures come to us from all over the church, asking us to give a distinct deliverance that will give them peace. There is general trouble on this question throughout the Avhole church ; they want the matter satisfactorily settled. We have a personal interest in this matter as well as the Presbytery of Augusta. I say, then, it not only comes to us in a legitimate way, but in the best way. "A second point made by the minority is that this body can consider only ecclesiastical matters. They do not deny the right of the Assembly to consider this ques- tion when it shall come up in judicial form, l^ow, if it is ecclesiastical when in judicial form, it must be equally ecclesiastical when in the form of memorial or overture. The word ecclesiastical is used in contradistinction to political and civil. "From the form in which God has seen fit to give his revelation to us, it covers in many cases the same field as 544 MV LIFE AND TIMES. science. In many instances it must cover the same ground as science, both physical and metaphysicah The first chapter of Genesis tells us that God created the heavens and the earth and man. This is a religious fact, which God wisely embodies in his revelation. Science covers the same ground. When, therefore, science at- tempts to cover the same ground which the church has preoc(ni])ied, then the monstrous claim is made that the church is intruding on science. Within the last century something that is called science has come forward, but all that is called science does not deserve the name; and jet it claims to determine some of these questions wdiich the church has always considered settled by revelation. Science comes in and squats on our territory. The cheek of the thing is monstrous. But if you will confine your- self to true science, there is no possible conflict between revelation and science. The book of nature and the book of revelation are both by the same God. God is true ; there can be no conflict in his various testimonies. "\Ye have attempted in the majority report to hold to the standards. They may be right or they may be wrong, but to us Presbyterians they are an authoritative expo- sition as to what the scriptures teach. We are to interpret these standards in their historic sense. Creeds and cove- nants must be interpreted in the sense that w^e believe those who framed them gave them ; but w^e do not claim for them the authority of inspiration. When ordained, . we accept them as containing the system of true doctrine, and we may not believe every point in its historical sense. Some of the statements of that (Confession are funda- mental, and so are vital ; some are not so. I have doubts about the six days of the creation. In their historical sense they must certainl\' be taken as six days of twenty- four hours each, but I do not know that I am prepared to accept that sense ; neither do I know if T believe it means six years or six long periods each. I do not know now which I believe. So, also, our Confession teaches that a man must not marry any woman nearer of kin to his do- ceased wife than he may of kin to himself. I do not agree with that statement. Who, then, is to determine whether the historic sense is to be accepted in these cases ? The CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 545 church. There are, therefore, certain limits to our neces- sary belief of the standards. Now, the word 'create' can have but one meaning, and that is immediate creation. That is what our creed teaches. That is what our Con- fession of Faith teaches. 'I'he rule is infloxibk^ that we must interpret them historically, but our Book provides for a certain liberty of belief. Some errors of belief and some practical innovations may not be mischievous ones. "For this majority report I ask your careful consider- ation. It is not my pa])or. It is a joint work, and the united wisdom of all the committee. We ask that you do not make ca[)tious objections to its verluage. It is the best we could do. We have used plain language rather than scientific technicalities. Science is now like the sheet which Peter saw lowered down from the heavens ; it is filled with animals of every sort, and all sorts of four- footed things." Dr. Armstrong went on to say that the Bible does not tell us Adam's body was created of clay, but of organic dust. "By organic dust we mean mould, vegetable or animal mould, as contradistingiiished from sand or clay. But wlum a man says it was evolved out of organic dust, I cannot agree to that. I do not know what he means. "We say in our report that he was created witliout any natural animal parentage, and in a manner to^ preserve pi'oj)cr race unity. What do' we mean by race unity? I'biit there was no more ape blood in Eve than in Adam, or rice versa, in this ground work for proper race unity. This is simply the statement of what we believe. The de- liverance is what we understand our standards teach. It Avas this our Westminster divines meant when they formu- hitcd these doctrines. This is no new doctrine. I have said, when you come to decide on limits of liberty, it must be determined if the error is one that strikes at the vitals of religion and is liable to do harm. We say these teachings of evolution are dangerous errors, because they endanger the plenary ins])iration of the scriptures, and leave the Bible no longer worthy to be called the word of God. These old ministers wliO' have been grounded in the word of God for twenty-five years are not endangered by the teachings, but the young men, if they adopt the 540 MY LIFE AND TIMES. same doctrine, are swept away. I do not believe in evolu- tion in any sense, and I am glad I do not ; but if you do, do not let it carry you to the belief that it refers to man made in the inuige of God. It will necessitate giving up the doctrine of the fall. According to evolution, man was at his loAvest stage, just evolved from a brute ; how could he fall ? He was already as low as he could get. I want to hold on to those first chapters of Genesis. I believe the garden of Eden had as distinct a location as the city of Jerusalem. It is all history to me. It is a book ple- narily inspired ; it is the word of God." Dr. Armstrong had spoken one hour and a half. Dr. Woodrow began with expression of his thanks for the two hours given him in which to explain his views. He heartily agreed with much that had been spoken by Dr. Armstrong. Anything that could lead to a doubt of the plenary inspiration of the scriptures should not be entertained by this Assembly. There was no human being who believed that doctrine more fully than he. "Show me that the opinions I hold are in opposition to any 'Thus saith the Lord,' and I abandon them at once. There is nothing in my belief that- does, directly or in- directly, impugn one sentence in that sacred word. I think I can show it to be so. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind of the perfect historical accuracy of the first chapter of Genesis and of every other chapter. "Dr. Armstrong properly called attention to the fact that this question is fully before you, and you have the right to discuss it ; but it is not always our duty to do that which it is our right and authority to do, and I think this is one such case. "It has been said, this (piestion is not alone scientific. So far as it is scientific, the church has nothing to do Avith it. Dr. Armstrong said the word ecclesiastical is used in contradistinction to what is political or civil. The contra- distinction must apply also to what is scientific, and the church has nothing to do with any matter which is not ecclesiastical. Every scientific subject must be ruled out. In our pulpits as ministers, in our church courts as pres- byters, we are not to handle political or civil, or scientific questions. But while agreeing with him in so much as CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 547 referred to the common domain of religion and science, and while appreciating- his charge that science was a squatter upon the territory of religion, and that their 'friends the enemy' must get out, I would remind him that science has some rights as well. We who are study- ing God's word and works find ample testimony for him in both. There is just as much squatting, and it is just as cheeky, for the ecclesiastic to preach on science as for science to intrude upon the ecclesiastic. "You have been told, and rightly told, that an oath is to be taken in the sense in which it is understood by the imposer of the oath. 'Creeds and covenants,' rightly says Dr. Armstrong, 'must be interpreted in their historical sense.' Yet Dr. Armstrong, as you have heard, while not allowing me to question the word 'dust,' feels quite free to doubt whether the six days of Genesis are literal days, which he says is the historic sense, or long periods ; and boldly declares that he does not agree with the prohibition of a man marrying his wife's sister. Perhaps his turning his back on the historic sense may not in either of these cases have surprised you very much. But were you not as- tounded Avhen one who says I may not suggest any other than the ordinary interpretation of the word 'dust,' boldly proclaimed here before us that man was not formed, as the Bible says, of dust, but of organic dust, and 'by or- ganic dust,' says he, 'we mean, not sand or clay, but some kind of mould, vegetable mould or animal mould ?' He comes and says, 'Oh ! no, sand and dust — that won't do.' I can show you that that will not do because there are silicates and silicic acids, etc., in these which do not ap- pear in the composition of man. These component parts are declared to exist in sand and clay by science, l^ow, I, who am held up as a heretic, would not on any account subordinate the word of God in this way to the teaching of science. Here look and see what a conspicuous example the distinguished gentleman who addressed you this morning has given us of the teachings of science and of the necessity of standing by the historical sense of what is written in our standards. He tells you that what he has just expressed about the meaning of the word dust is not the historical sense of that word, and that science confirms 548 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. what he says ; and tliis being scientific, you must ac- cept it. "I accepted, as you accepted, and I now accept, every word in this story of the creation contained in our stan- dards. I believe that God created man from the dust, and woman from the rib taken from the man's side. If I had full power to rewrite our standards, I would not wish to change a sentence, word or letter from that which already exists. "The great difficulty is that those entertaining ideas differing from the majority report are misunderstood. This whole subject is a new one. It was not in existence until a comparatively late period. It must pass through many periods before it reaches an easily understood shape. You have been called on to condemn the heresy of evolution without any qualification, and then in so far as it relates to man. Let me read to you from a book by Dr. Armstrong. He sets out a scheme of evolution thus : 'The oak passes into the silk w^orm, the silk worm into the frog, the frog into man.' I never saw any scientist who even came in a thousand miles of believing such a caricature. Is it strange you should say, 'Out of my way' with such absurdity ? If this profound student of half a century errs thus in representing evolution, what can we expect from those who have had no such opportunity for study ^ Again, Dr. Armstrong has announced in this book a fact that is the most important step in geology of the last half century, if true ; and he asserts it upon his own observation. It is absolutely new to every geologist in the world. He says that on the western flank of the Alleghenies, in Virginia, grow corals and sponges of the same character as those now living upon the Florida coast. "There is much of doubt hanging over new sciences, and we ought not to be too hurried in the expression of our opinions. It is desirable that the church should take more time before giving a definite utterance of its opinion upon evolution. I do not want to reflect on our jirede- cessors, but whenever the church has undertaken to decide any question showing the relation of science and religion, she has always been totally wrong, invaria])ly and dread- COXTKOVERSIES OF SCIEI>fCE. 549 fully wrong. Fifteen hundred years ago the church taught that the idea was not only ridiculous, but contrary to the scriptures, that the earth was round. In the six- teenth century the mobility of the earth and fixedness of the starry system was condemned by the Christian church. The law of gravitation was condemned as taking away from God the power he had of controlling his universe. Shall we learn anything or not ? Shall we not learn that we must take a little time to decide these questions ^ "The infallible rule for interpreting scripture is by the scripture itself. Things not clear in themselves are else- where sufficiently explained to give proper understanding. The sci'iptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duties God requires of man. Xot only do they principally teach this, but they teach nothing else. The Bible was not intended to teach the relation between things, but between God and man. "You are requested to say that Adam and Eve were created by an immediate act, so as to preserve the perfect race unity, j^ow, if you are going to explain, you ought to make things plainer. What do you mean by imme- diate ? Do you mean without media ? There were the dust, the rib, as media in this creation. It cannot mean, therefore, without media. It must mean, then, instan- taneous. Who told you it was instantaneous ? Did God ? Does he tell you how long he took to make man ? He says he did it. He did it with dust of the ground. But does he say he did it instantaneously ? There is no hint, how- ever slight, that it was so. ISTeither the standards nor the word of God affirm it. You are adding to the word of God, and requiring those under you to believe that which God has not spoken. That Adam's body was directly fashioned by Almighty God, neither our standards nor the Bible say anything of the sort. The Bible is absolutely silent as to mode and time. If you assert that you know, you err. You assert that which you will not find author- ity for in the word of God. ''This majority report affirms that the first pair were created without any natural animal parentage. How do you know this ? They were created, it is said, from dust. How long had this dust been created ? Some will answer 550 MY LIFE AND TIMES. that it was created a few days before. Others, that it was created ages — long geological ages — before. ]^ow, what changes occurred in those ages '^ You do not know. If you adopt this report, you will be adding, not only to our standards unlawfully, but you will be adding to God's word that which he never taught, that which it is no- where intimated he meant to teach. We have no right to interpret God's thoughts. Are we fit to say what God's way Avould be? God leads his children through a path beset with pain and agony. When our children ask for bread, we give it them. But God says. Get your bread by the sweat of your brow. His thoughts are not our thoughts, his ways are not our ways. There are many things we have to confess that we cannot understand. What was the nature and the meaning of that 'still small voice' which said, 'Let there be' '^ I do not know ; but I know that God caused that voice to come, and I know what it effected, and that is all that it is necessary for me to know. I know God created man, but I do not know how he did it, and I am not going to thrust forward my own peculiar views upon a matter which God in no way teaches. "It is said that we are told by God in his word that he made the body of Adam from literal dust. But what is said on that subject is said almost word for word in re- gard to the lower animals. What may be true of the for- mation of one may be true of the other ; and any one who admits that the lower animals may have been formed by an evolutionary process must admit that the body of man may have been formed in the same manner. Xow, Dr. Armstrong says in his book, 'The hypothesis of evolution, in its most limited range, is not irreconcilable, as I think, with the Bible account of the creation of plants and ani- mals in the world.' Are you going in the face of what is told you by this learned divine ? But the same language is used with regard to the lower animals that is used of the body of man. Are you going, in this hurried and ill- advised way, to add to the standards of the church ? ''You are told that this doctrine, if accepted as proba- bly true, will endanger the doctrine of the federal head- ship of Adam. If this is so, then it is untrue. But it COXTROVEKSIES OF scie:n"ce. 551 passes mv comprehension to see wherein the connection lies. It cannot make any possible difference what God nsed. Who was Adam ^ Was Adam that which was made of the dust of the ground ^ Xo, the soul was the man, and nothing became man until it was united with the soul, and if there had been a million forms like Adam's, it did not become man or Adam until God placed the soul within it. '"T will not enter upon the sentimental side of the question. I have presented in brief some of the principal reasons why you should not now consider these overtures that have been submitted to the Assembly. But your answer should be to them: For the teachings of the church we refer you to the standards of the church. I would urge that you abstain from what would be a griev- ous wrong, and must prejudice a case now pending in a lower court of this church. "I have spoken as long as I care to now ; if I shall see fit at some later time to avail myself of the remaining time belonging to me, I should like the privilege to do so." Rev. Dr. R. K. Smoot said it was the clear right and duty of the Assembly to give decisions against errors of doctrine and immorality in practice. Here w^as a case brought before the Assembly by overtures from eight presbyteries. These presbyteries have a right to your tes- timony against the erroneous doctrine now in question. Dr. Smoot insisted that a decision from this Assembly could not interfere unfavorably with the case now said to be before the Augusta Presbytery. For Dr. Woodrow to say that our decision must affect unfavorably his case before a lower court, is not that a constructive plea of guilty ?" The remainder of his speech was an earnest de- fence of the necessity and propriety of the committee's aihrming that Adam's Body was created by an immediate act of almighty power. ''The word 'immediate' is over and against evolution. As long as you have immediate in there, you are against evolution. Some modest, timid member will rise and say, 'Brother Moderator, I think the trouble will be at an end if we strike out "immediate" in the report.' I have no doubt it will, but that word 'im- mediate' is the gravamen of the issue. I got that word 552 MY LIFE AXn TIMES. from the gentleman himself. Stick to it. It is opposed to evolution. Hold to it." Rev. F. L. Ferguson said: ''I agree with Dr. Arm- strong and Dr. Woodrow both u])on the general issue be- fore us, but, as to just how Adam was made, I am be- ginning to believe that 1 do not know what I believe. [Laughter.] The one with his chemical and the other with his natural process have pretty thoroughly confused me. [Laughter.] I doubt the legality of that majority report. ''I thought I saw in the argument before the committee infinite complications, and the arguments to-day do not improve things. What an imbecility it is to urge that Dr. Woodrow makes a constructive plea of guilty when he says that a decision against him in this highest court might have an unfavorable effect upon the lower court which is about shortly to try his case ! The idea seems to be that it is no matter whether his presbytery decides against him, because he can then appeal to his Synod ; l)ut is it not very plain that if the synod decide against him he will be cut off from our highest court, because it will have already decided against him ^ "I doubted the expediency of this course at first, and I am more confirmed now in my belief. Advocates of the majority report think it will settle the whole matter. Will it settle it here in Augusta 'I The report of that minority committee is the true doctrine of the Presbyte- rian Church. It is urged that this trouble is widespread. There are only seven overtures ; that leaves sixty-one presbyteries that do not seem to have any trouble. But, be it Avidespread or not, the presbyteries are able to deal with this matter. Since this matter has come up, several members have said to me, *I believe your paper is the true thing, but there is a demand for a deliverance upon this question.' There was a time in the committee wdien a paper might have passed that, for conspicuous and pic- turesque and)iguity, would have excelled anything ever introduced into this body. The members did not endorse what it said, but it was an easy way out of the troulde, and in order to get rid of the thing, they were about to vote for it, Xow, I say if this minority paper is true CO:^TROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 553 Presbyterian doctrine, let iis vote for it. If the majority report is true doctrine, let ns vote for that. I am no ad- vocate of evolntion, but I do not want this Assembly to take a step wliicli may prove an unwise step, or by its action to prejudge a case pending in a lower court." Rev. Dr. G. B. Strickler said : ''If we adopt this evolu- tion doctrine, it brings us into odium, because it was of anti-Christian origin. The originator of it was Charles Darwin, and the propagators, Huxley, Tyndall and others, j)i"onounced sceptics and infidels. If the Presby- terian Church declares that it believes we came from monkeys, it will cause prejudice against the church. If this doctrine is admitted by us, our standards must be rewritten. Our standards say man has fallen physically, morally, and in every way. According to evolution, he is now more perfect than when he came from the hand of God. According to the doctrine of evolution, he is im- measurably above what he was before he had sinned at all. "According to what has been said before, if we would interpret scripture correctly, we must compare scrip- ture with scripture. Was this doctrine of evolution got- ten from scripture ^ l^o ; it was originated in the investi- gations of science. The scripture was brought into har- mony with this teaching of science by giving it a meaning as different from its real meaning as it is possible for it to be. You can see that a tremendous amount of force was brought to bear to accomplish this thing. "The injury that this doctrine is doing renders it im- portant that the church should take action upon this mat- ter wherever it has an opportunity to do so properly." Rev. Dr. W. F. Junkin: "It has been said the intro- duction of this subject prejudices a case in a lower court, and that it is grievous injustice to decide it. In the concrete case below, the facts and law come up. We sim- ply define what is the law as held by our church. The case below must stand or fall upon the facts as judged by the law which we are asked to clearly define. Our report attacks no individual. We did not name any man. We said there were certain evils. If there is poison in the well at Avhich my children are drinking, it is vastly more important to me to have the well purified or the water cut 554 MY LIFE AND TIMES. off from my family than to know who pnt the poison in it ; but if a man comes forward and says he did it, I fly at him in just indig-nation and hokl him for proper pun- ishment. It is not so important to us who caused this trouble as to end the trouble. If we do not come to a deliverance in this matter, we are false to our vows and our God. These overtures are respectful and earnest. They say, We appeal to you to know if these teachers shall be allowed to contradict the teachings of God as we understand them. Are we competent to give this utter- ance ? It is said we are not experts in science and we do not know it all. But we do not need to know what is evo- lution. We do not have to give a deliverance on. evolution, but upon the word of God and our standards. The church does not want a deliverance on evolution. Our science is a science that arises above this dust, like the sun above the grovelling insects upon the ground. "There is need for a deliverance. We are competent and authorized to give it. Now, what should be the char- acter of that utterance ? We are not here to say whether the Confession of Faith is true or not. We are not here to say the Bible is true. As Dr. Armstrong said, 'We have already cast that anchor out, and that anchor holds.' We are not here to make a deliverance on science. Who told you the first chapters of Genesis were true ? The other chapters told me so ; the Bible tells me so. Study the Bible with the Bible. "Our utterance should be a clean-cut, clear and unmis- takable deliverance of what we believe to be the doctrine of the Confession of Faith and the Catechism in refer- ence to the creation of man. You have such an utterance in the majority report now before this Assembly, and I hope it will be adopted as the voice of this Assembly." Rev. F. L. Ferguson concluded the discussion upon the question of evolution on the part of the minority in a speech of five minutes yet remaining to that side. He said : "I would like to know if these brethren mean this Assembly must answer 'yes' or 'no' to these overtures. If seven presbyteries have the right to demand a categorical construction of any question — of this question — then, why shall not, at the next Assem])ly, other presbyteries CONTROVERSIES OF SCIEIfCE. 555 come forward and demand at our hands tliat we con- .strne the creation of the workl in six days ? What was meant by six days? That question, if urged (and why may it not be?), will carrv us into endless and aimless troubles and discussions. Ue have heard it several times already on this floor that there is doubt in the minds of some of the fathers in the church on this question. If these seven presbyteries are in trouble, let them determine it for themselves. There is no widespread trouble throughout the church demanding action at our hands now that will prejudice and prejudge a case pending in a lower court. My time is so short that I cannot enter into argument, but must simply content myself with this state- ment. I believe the paper I have offered best meets the question, and I do not believe the adoption of the ma- jority report will be wise or expedient.'' After considerable debate. Dr. ^Yoodrow was given fifteen minutes to conclude — the time left by him in his :first speech. Dr. Woodrow, in conclusion : ''I do not desire to force myself upon this Assembly. I recognize the courtesy of the Assembly in allowing me so much time. But I warn you that the adoption of this majority report is not only an arraignment of myself, but a condemnation on the charge of heresy of half of the Synod of South Carolina, a large portion of the Synods of Georgia, Alabama and elsewhere, and these are condemned as unfit to teach in the name of this church. A deliverance such as you now propose has no legal effect, and is not to be obeyed by any one who believes it is in opposition to the word of God. To such it would be devoid of the semblance of authority. '*So far as I have heard, there has not been one fair statement of my views. Dr. Hollifield said, 'Dr. Wood- row says he has been for years in search of something to tell him what Adam was made of;' and added, 'here is a Bible that will tell him.' Xow, I knew all the Bible said before he was born [laughter], and I believe it, too. "As to evolution, it is a matter of absolute indifference. I care nothing for it. What is evolution ? At best it is nothing but a hypothesis, a theory, altogether outside of the word of God. Like chemistry or astronomy, it is a 556 MY LIFE AND Ti^rp:s. science not in tlie word of God ; bnt if there is a single word of God that is contrary to it, that is enongh to con- demn it with me. If this Assemhly shonkl propose to make any deliverance in favor of evolution, I should op- pose it as strongh' as any member of this body. The ques- tion before us is, shall this Assembly inject into the word of God something that is not there ? You are asked to prescribe the time occupied by God in the creation of man, when God has not told you. The Bible tells us that God created man of dust, but it does not say how long he was in doing it, and you are adding your own petty no- tions to his ever-glorious and true word. You will be vio- lating the sacred trust imposed in you. You will be say- ing what he has not authorized you to say, speaking in his name what he himself has not spoken or authorized you to speak. I beseech you, therefore, not for my sake, but that you may be true servants of the high God, that you do not drive away those who cannot subscribe to such a declaration. There is nothing in the Bible that will au- thorize you to say the creation was 'immediate,' and if you do so, you go in the face of the word of God." Dr. Armstrong, chairman of the committee making the majority report, now proceeded to close the discussion, it being determined that there should be no discussion by the members of the Assembly outside of the committee. He began with a vindication of his friend, Dr. Hodge, wdiom Dr. Flinn had said agreed with Dr. Woodrow, that the theory of evolution was not opposed to the teachings of the Bible. He had a letter from the Doctor read, in which he said, ''I fully agree with you on all the grounds in your book," and, said Dr. Armstrong, 'T do not sup- pose anybody will accuse me of agreeing with Dr. Wood- row. "There has been no attack on our main position as to the competency or authority of this body to issue a de- liverance, and that the interpretation of our standards must be in their historical sense, and that, interpreted in their historical sense, they do controvert this system of evolution. The point on which you will feel most diffi- culty is that the case is already before a lower court of this church in the way of a judicial process. But before this controvi:ksies of sciexce. 557 case was brought into that court, the subject had been taken up by different presbyteries, and they sent their overtures to us. There is a difference of opinions, and then- ask us to interpret our standards. TVe are perfectly competent to do so. Suppose we wait till the synods or presbyteries signify their rulings, will it not have it* moral effect upon this body when it comes before us ? Do not let that argument of prejudice influence you to refuse a decision here. There are three papers before you. The report of the minority is in substance that we give no answer. That is not a fair answer. It is not what they have a right to. In the other minority report, the first difference is that we send our views in the form of a pas- toral letter. '"This paper says just as much as the paper of the ma- jority, but when I speak on a subject in which I have con- victions, I want to use language that everybody can under- stand. Ours is in plain language. I believe it is the pur- pose of this Assembly to give an answer to these over- tures. I deprecate this doctrine, because it impugns the inspiration of the word of God." After considerable debate as to the form in which this question was before the house, both minority reports were put to a vote and lost, and the majority report was adopted, on a call of the veas and nays, by a vote of 137 to 13. This vote was taken on the sixth day, and a good many commissioners took their departure. Dr. Armstrong, and it may be supposed other moderate men, amongst them. Evidently some of those who remained were more enthu- siastic than their leaders, and these, being not fully sat- isfied, felt that some positive action should be taken, and amid a good deal of confusion and a great deal of excite- ment, there was passed by a majority of fifty-four to thirty-six, in a house reduced from one hundred and fifty to but ninety commissioners, a paper directing the four controlling synods to dismiss Professor Woodrow from the Seminary, and appoint another in his place. In an- other paper, which the confused minutes say was adopted, though we are not told by what vote, we read as fol- lows : 558 :my life axd timks. Yoni' Committee on Thoologiciil S(MiiiiKiiip>i wo\ild respectfully report as follows : First, in reply to tlie injunction laid upon us to find and state the relation existing between this General Assembly and the theological seminaries organized within the pale of our church, we report: 1. That this Assembly sustains very important relations to all such institutions ; yet these relations differ somewhat according to the constitution and practice of each institution as ratified by the Assembly. 2. That by the veiy genius of Presbyterianism the Assembly is bound to maintain a supervisory jurisdiction over these and all other like corporations; and also over all schemes for religious work, so far as they affect the practice or doctrine of the Assembly's constituencies, and especially the office-bearers of the church. 3. That this jurisdiction must in every case enable the Assembly, through the proper channels of authority, to keep all such institu- tions free from everything inconsistent with the spirit of our sys- tem ; and, of course, free from all teaching inconsistent with the Avord of God as expounded in our standards. It will be noticed that here is an attempt by the Au- gusta Assembly to state the trite relation between the General Assembly and all the theological seminaries of our church, x^othing is said as to what is written on the powers of the Assembly in our Book of Church Order, but reference is made to the different seminary constitu- tions as having been ratified by the Assembly, and there is some allusion to the directorships of the seminaries as being in corporations by legislative enactment. But the distinct claim is made for the Assembly of supervisory jurisdiction over various corporations and all schemes for religious work, and in large measure over all the Assem- bly's constituencies, and especially the office-bearers of the church. The Prosecution of Di?. Woodkow before the Pres- bytery OF Augusta. This trial had commenced previous to the meeting of the Assembly at Augusta, so far as that Dr. William Adams, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in that city, had given notice to the Presbytery of Augusta, meet- ing at Waynesville,Ga.,on the I7th of April, 188(5, that he would undertake to make out charges against Dr. AVood- CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 559 row. The indictment had also' been drawn np, with tlie charges and speciiications duly presented, and it had been duly served. The actnal trial took place at the next meet- ing of presbytery, Aiignst IGth, at the little elinrch of Bethany. I get the official documents 1 am about to present, all duly signed, from a pamphlet of some eighty pages octavo or more, whose title page reads thus : "Record and Evi- dence in the Case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Kev. Dr. William Adams, Voluntary Prosecutor) vei'sus James Woodrow. Printed at the Presbyterian Publishing House, Columbia. 1888." This pamphlet contains the record and evidence taken from the presbytery's minutes, and also all the printed papers referred to in the indictment. It also contains the records of the Synod of Georgia, which succeeded this presbytery's meeting. Rkcord in the Case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States versus Rev. James Woodrow, D. D., August 16, 1886. The Moderator charged tlie court, and the indictment was then read as follows : To the Preshyiery of Augusta, Get., Waynesboro, Ga., April 17, 1886: Dear Brethren : In the name of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, I, William Adams, a member and minister of the Augusta Presbytery, do hereby charge and accuse the Rev. James Woodrow, D. D., a member and minister of the same presbytery, with the following offences : 1. Teaching and promulgating opinions and doctrines in conflict with the sacred Scriptures as interpreted in the Confession of Faith and the Larger and i>thortcr Catechisms of the Westminster Assem- bly- In that the said James Woodrow, on the 7th day of May, 1884, in an address on evolution, delivered before the Alumni Association of the Columbia Theological Seminary, and in the Southern Presbyte- rian newspaper of August 21, 1884, August 28, 1884, and October 15, 1885, and in speeches made in the Synods of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and South Georgia and Florida, also in an article published in the Southern Presbyterian Review of January, 1885, did teach and promulgate that the body of Adam was probably the product of evolution from the body of some lower animal. 2. That the said James Woodrow, in the publications and speeches referred to, did teach and promulgate opinions which are of a dan- 560 MY lifp: xVNd times. gerous tendency, and wliicli arc calculated to unsettle the mind of the church respecting the accuracy and authority of the Holy Scrip- tures as an infallible rule of faith — In that he did teach and promulgate the opinion that the body of Adam was probably not made or created of the dust of the ground, as is universally understood by the cliurch to be the declaration of the word of God, but of organic matter preexisting in the body of a brute. Against the peace and purity of the church and the honor and majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ as King and Head thereof. William Adams. Witnesses: Rev. J. L. Girardeau, D. D., of Columbia, S. C. ; Rev. J. L. Rogers, of Atlanta, Ga. ; Mr. J. W. Wallace, of Augusta, Ga. The answer of the accused was heard, which was, "I am not guilty." Dr. ^^'oodrow said : I here formally recognize as my own produc- tion, as accurately representing what I said at the times specified, all that is contained in my published Address on Evolution, May 7, 1884, and in my published speech before the Synod of South Caro- lina, October 27 and 28, 1884. I also recognize as my own produc- tion the articles in the Southern Presbyterian newspaper of August 21, 1884, August 28, 1884, October 15, 1885, referred to in the in- dictment. I also state that I made speeches containing the same or similar sentiments and views before the Synods of Georgia, Ala- bama, and South Georgia and Florida, and that I do now hold and believe to be true everything that is set forth in any of these publi- cations and speeches. Evidence for the Prosecution. Rev. Dr. J. L. Girardeau was sworn as a witness: Question by Dr. Adams : Did you or not hear Dr. Woodrow's ad- dress before the Alumni Association, and also before the Sj'nod of South Carolina on the subject of Evolution? Answer. I heard Dr. Woodrow's address before the Society of Alumni, and I heard his speeches before the Synod of South Carolina at Greenville October, 1884. Q. Tell us what was the effect of those addresses on your own mind? A. The etTect of the address before the Society of Alumni was about this: I do not feel called upon to argue the case before this court, but simply to give evidence as a witness. The first effect upon my own mind was that of surprise when I heard his address before the Society of Alumni. I had never heard, so far as I could recollect, Dr. Woodrow advance the same position in regard to evolu- controversip:s of science. 561 tion before that time. I was gratified with the ability displayed in the address. I felt a natural pride in it as an intellectual achieve- ment, because 1 was a colleague with Dr. VVoodrow in the same Seminary, and wished him success in meeting the requirements of the occasion, and therefore, after the delivery of the address, I ad- vanced to Dr. Woodrow and offered him my congratulations. I was at first in doubt as to the full meaning of what Dr. Woodrow said. Subsequently I studied tlie address and came to the conclusion that lie had advocated evolution under limitations upon grounds of prob- ability. The effect on my mind of the speeches at Greenville was the conviction that Dr. Woodrow was at that time a pronounced evolutionist, with the limitations which he himself threw around his theory. I say, further, that during the interval between the delivery of the address and the delivery of the speeches, having be- come convinced that the publication of Dr. Woodrow's views would seriously agitate the church, I went to him personally and ac- xjuainted him with the posture of my own mind on the subject, stat- ing to him that, as his colleague, I could not oppose his view, even privately, without first apprising him of the convictions of my own mind, and then having so stated my own view to him, and feeling that I must oppose his view, I determined, in accordance with a resistless sentiment of honor, to resign my professorship in the ■Seminary. Q. From your own knowledge of the condition of our church, can you say whether or not those addresses have been hurtful to the ■church of God? A. I have some hesitation in answering that ques- tion. I cannot be the judge of ultimate results. Of course, there has been agitation in the church, but whether the ultimate result will be beneficial or hurtful, it is not for me as a witness to say. Q. How long have you been connected with the Columbia Semi- nary as a professor? A. About ten years. From January, 1876, to May of this year. Q. Is this a copy of the constitution of the Seminary? A. Yes. Q. Did you subscribe to Sec. 3, Art. 5? A. I subscribed to the pledge contained in the article. I subscribed to that pledge, written, I think, in the minutes of the Board of Directors, submitted to the General Assembly in 1876. Q. Eead that article. (Sec. 3, Art. 5, read by the witness.) Q. Do you know whether the same pledge is required of every other professor in the Semhiary? A. I do not remember to have been present when that pledge was subscribed by any other professor. (Corrected. I think I was present when Drs. Boggs and Hemphill signed the pledge.) So far as I know, the pledge was in every copy •of the constitution, and I presume they all signed. Dr. Woodrow here said, "I signed that pledge." 502 MY LIFK AND TIMES. Q. Did you not liear Dr. Woodrow refer in his Greenville speech to his having signed this pledge? A. I do not remember. Q. In the speech you heard in South Carolina, state whether there was any reference to any exceptions taken to any part of that pledge? A. He did reply to some allegations made by myself. All the authority I had for anything said on that subject was derived from Dr. Woodrow's inaugural address before the Synod of Georgia, and then, so far as I know, he did not file an exception formally to any part of the standards, but in the inaugural address defined his position in regard to the antiquity of the globe, affirming to be cer- tainly true in regard to that matter what was contrary to the his- toric sense of the standards. Q. Did he take any exception to any other article in the Confession of Faith or Catechisms of the church? A. I have already said that Dr. Woodrow did not take formal exception at first to any article so far as I understood him. But after the question of his installation as professor had been settled by the authority competent to act in the case, he then pronounced true his geological view as to the antiquity of the globe. At the same time I did not understand Dr. Woodrow to say that this view contravened the standards, whatever my belief may have been in regard to the matter. In the Synod at Greenville he advocated his view of evolution, which was argued against as contrary to the standards, but which he himself affirmed to be not inconsistent with them. I cannot, then, say that Dr. Woodrow took exception to any part of the standards while he ad- vocated that view, though I myself charged him with contradicting the standards by it. Q. Did you know then of any other minister, in fact of any scien- tist, who held tlie same views as the defendant then advocated with respect to the creation of Adam and Eve? A. At the time of the de- livery of the address I did not know of any minister who held the same views. My reading in science is limited. So far as it went, I did not know of any scientific man who held the same views. At the meeting of the Synod in Greenville I met one person, a member of the Synod, who told me he agreed with Dr. Woodrow. One or two others seemed to lean to the view. Further I cannot say. Q. Before you heard those addresses, did you ever hear or know of such a construction placed upon the word of God or the standaids of the church with respect to the creation of man as the construction placed by the defendant in those addresses? A. I remember having read in a certain commentary a view somewhat analogous to that of Dr. Woodrow, as at least not being impossible. That was Lange's Commentary on Genesis; but aside from that I cannot remember having encountered the same construction of the Scripture. I know of no other. CONTKOVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 5G3 Q. Did you ever hear before that time of "organic dust"? A. Never. If I had, sir, I should have noticed it, for I considered it the most extraordinary combination of words I had ever heard. Q. Do you know whetlier that combination is to be found in dic- tionary, vocabulary or lexicon? A. No, sir; I could not well have met that combination of words in a dictionary or vocabulary or lex- icon, for they do not give words in combination, except in illustra- tive examples, and I say in brief, I never met that combination in any writer, so far as I can remember. Q. Do you recollect when the defendant was before the Synod of South Carolina, his having said anything respecting a change in his views on this subject between the time of his inaugural address as Perkins Professor, and the time of the address before the Synod, and if so, can you, as nearly as possible, tell the court what he said ? A. I do not remember that Dr. Woodrow distinctly said he had undergone a change of view. I do remember that he gave an account of a visit to Europe, and of his having held interviews with distin- guished scientific men, he being at that time opposed to evolution. I also heard him advocate his hypothesis of evolution powerfully be- fore the Synod. Not my business to draw inferences as a witness. He did not speak of his change of views, so far as I remember. He did advocate evolution in my hearing. Q. Were you or not aware of any unrest among the students of the Seminary with respect to the teachings of Dr. Woodrow previous to the address before the Alumni Association? Asked, objected to, and withdrawn. Q. What has been the effect, so far as you know, of these ad- dresses upon the minds of the students of Columbia Seminary? A. The question is a general one, and I scarcely know how to answer. The elfect, so far as I knew, was to produce great discussion, but I knew certainly of no student wno adopted Dr. Woodrow's view of evolution. There was one, of whom I cannot speak confidently, who may have leaned that way. Q. Do you subscribe to the Southern Preshyterian? A. I do. Q. Do you recollect reading a letter of mine in that paper in which I charged the defendant with declaring before Augusta Presbytery that he had four thousand constituents, to whom he was teaching these views; and do you recollect or not, in a subsequent issue of his paper, his saying that this statement was substantially true, only that the number was underestimated? A. I do remember the facts you mention. I am not positively sure as to the language of Dr. Woodrow. I remember the facts. Q. May I ask, as an expert and professor, what is the origin of this doctrine of evolution? Is it an outcome of the research of the church of God, or has it an infidel oiigin? A. The origin of the doc- 564 MY LIFE AND TIMES. trine, so far as I know, is philosophical. I have no idea that it originated in Christian research. Who first originated it, I cannot tell. But the doctrine of evolution has been used for infidel pur- poses by the majority of those who hold it. I do not say Dr. Wood- row's hypothesis has been so used. Cross-examination hi/ Dr. Woodrow. Q. Are you much interested in the result of this trial? A. I am deeply interested. I have no interest in seeing Dr. Woodrow, my old colleague, under the ban of the church. I cherish no malice against Dr. Woodrow. I forgive the injuries he has inflicted on me personally, and continue to pray for him and his as heretofore. But I am profoundly interested in the result of the discussion of his view. Q. Please state to the presbytery how you manifested that in- terest in seeking to influence the action of the Synod of Georgia at its meeting in Marietta in 1884? A. In order to answer that ques- tion I must give the history of the transaction. The Synod of South Carolina at Greenville, by a majority of fifty against forty- five, voted to prohibit the teaching of Dr. Woodrow's views in the Theological Seminary. I learned before I left Greenville, that some one had telegraphed to the office of the Southern Presbyterian a glorious victory for Dr. Woodrow. Coming down upon the train after the adjournment, I heard the opinion expressed by several of the members of Synod that Dr. W^oodrow had gained a substantial triimiph. I knew that Dr. Mack was going to attend the meeting of the Synod of Georgia, and I sent a private telegram to him im- mediately upon my arrival in Columbia. The precise words of the telegram I do not know. Q. Are these the words, "Insist Synod's action was no compro- mise; was definitely anti-Woodrow, so intended, so was"? A. That is the telegram. I meant, sir, to nail the statement that the Synod of South Caro- lina had gone for Dr. Woodrow as a false statement as to facts, or that the action was a compromise action. I had no intention to have Dr. INIack use that telegram publicly. It was so used. I am responsible for it. It was the truth. I was perfectly willing. that the trutli should be uttered and the falsehood denied. I remember distinctly pausing upon the composition of the telegram. The fii'st words that occurred to me were like these — "Definitely opposed to Dr. ^Voodrow's teaching," but I put "anti-Woodrow," not meaning that the decision was opposed to Dr. Woodrow personally, but to his teaching, and the compound word "anti-Woodrow" simply ex- pressed that state of mind. I meant nothing more by it. Had I known that it would be read publicly. I would have been more CONTKOVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 565 cautious. I would have feared the misapprehension resulting from the use of the word. Dr. Woodrow knew that at the meeting of the Synod at Greenville, I had clearly drawn the distinction between him personally and his teaching. Do not know if I had the right to draw the inference, but I must have undergone a great change if I made a personal attack on Dr. Woodrow in the telegram. Dr. Woodrow came back from the Synods, and in his paper deliberately affirmed the correctness of the report that he had gained a complete victory at Greenville. Q. You have said you did not intend that telegram to be read publicly. How did you expect it to influence that body? A. There were two ways in which Dr. Mack could have insisted on the infor- mation communicated to him in my telegram: in his conversation with members of the Synod, and also as a corresponding member of the Synod. That is my statement of my intention. I meant Dr. Mack to do all that he could do, but had no design to have the tele- gram published, and was surprised when it was read. Q. Was Dr. Mack present at the meeting of the Synod of South Carolina at Greenville? A. Yes. Q. Did Dr. Mack know what the action of the Synod of South Carolina was? A. He was there; he must have known. Q. Did your telegram in any way increase that knowledge? A. I cannot conceive of any way in which it could have increased it. No, sir. Q. The telegram served to show your zeal in the matter? A. Oh! yes, sir ; powerful zeal ! Q. Dr. Girardeau, did you write the minority report presented to Synod at Greenville? A. I did. Q. By whom was it presented? A. By Rev. Mr. Webb, of the Committee on Theological Seminaries. Q. Did that report require that the inculcation and defence of Professor Woodrow's hypothesis be prohibited? A. Yes. Q. Was this report adopted? A. No. Q. Will you state what was adopted? A. I remember tlie purport, but not the words. Q. Will you please state what action was taken by the Synod? A. My recollection is that it was a very short resolution — about in these words. Resolved, That the teaching of Dr. Woodrow on the subject of Evolution, except in a purely expository manner, be pro- hibited in the Columbia Seminary. Q. You stated that the teaching was prohibited; are you willing to say that now, after the last answer? A. Yes. Q. You regard prohiljiting, and prohibiting except in a certain manner, as equivalent? A. Of course, there is a difference as to de- gree and as to the manner. The Synod of South Carolina did not 5GG MY LIFE AND TIMES. proliibit Dr. Woodrow teaching in an expository manner, but did prohibit his teaching in any other than an expository manner. Q. Did you publish in the Columbia Register your dissent from my teaching? A. I did. I preached a sermon on Elijah at Carmel in a Columbia church, and some one in a paper mentioned that I had attacked Dr. Woodrow in that sermon. I denied it and expressed my dissent in the Columbia Negistcr, and if I had intended to at- tack Dr. Woodrow, would have done so openly, and not in a sneaking way. Q. This was the first public expression of your dissent that could have reached Dr. Woodrow's ears? A. I think so. Q. You have forgotten. Dr. Girardeau, that your interview with me was some time after this publication in the Register? A. I have. Q. You stated as a matter of some importance that your fi^st ex- l)rcssed dissent from my views was made to me privately, before you would feel at liberty to express such dissent publicly? A. I do not remember as to the time — the relation between the times of the publication and my interview with Dr; Woodrow. I said to him that 1 would not oppose his views without first acquainting him with the posture of my own mind. Q. Do you regard an expression of non-concurrence or dissent in a secular paper as opposition? A. Non-concurrence does not amount to a determination to oppose. I wished the community of Colum]>ia to know that I did not agree with Dr. Woodrow. Q. You remarked a while ago that until I delivered my address on evolution, you had never heard the combination of words, "organic dust." Did you hear it then? A. I do not rememl)er whether those words were used in your address or not. They were freely used subsequently to Dr. Woodrow's address. Q. In regard to "organic dust," did you ever hear the term "anti- ^Voodrow" before you used it? A. I do not know tliat I ever did. Q. Have you said that Dr. Woodrow's "hypothesis is that Adam as to his body was born of animal parents"? A. Yes. Q. What authority had you for that statement? A. The authority I had was Dr. Woodrow's address before the Alumni, page 17. Q. Is there anything in my address referred to that authorizes it? A. Yes. Unless there was extraordinary supernatural intervention of Almighty God which was not involved in the first statement, it must be inferred that the body of Adam, like the body of other ani- mals, was born. Q. Was it your inference and not my statement? A. Yes, a good logical inference. Q. Has any one a right to attribute opinions to another which are only inferences from that other's statements? A. Yes, decidedly. As to the intention of the person who usos tlie arguments, I have no CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 567 right to impute to him what he disowns; but as to the arguments, I have a right to use all logical inferences that grow out of them. Q. Did you ever say that Dr. Woodrow's hypothesis as to Adam is, '"that Adam as to his body was born of animal ancestry"? A. Yes, either in the address or exposition following; as far as my recollection goes, he used the expression charged to him. Q. Did Dr. Woodrow ever say that? A. 1 do not know that he did. Q. Did you ever say that Dr. Woodrow's hypothesis was that "the existence of Adam's body preceded for years the formation of Eve's body"? A. Yes, as far as I recollect. Q. Did I ever use that expression? A. I do not know, but they are good and logical inferences. Q. Did Dr. Woodrow ever say anything about the time that elapsed between the creation of Adam's body and that of Eve's body? A. I do not know that Dr. Woodrow said as to the exact time after Adam was created, but he did assert that Adam's body was formed before that of Eve. giving the Bible verbiage as to Eve's formation. (Signed) J. L. Girardeau. (Placed in evidence two speeches by Dr. Girardeau in the Synod of South Carolina.) The documents referred to in the indictment were here submitted as evidence. Question by Rev. J. B. Morton to Dr. Girardeau : Did you say that Dr. Woodrow's teachings were not heresy? A. I did. In the Confession all error that is contrary to the standards is treated in one place as heresy — so called in that place. But that is not the ordinary theological sense of the word heresy, which signifies error, implying a high degree of pravitj'. But in the Book of Discipline a distinction is drawn between errors — some being treated as of a high degree of pravity and others as not; and it must be inquired whether an error is of a serious character and threatens injury to the cause of Christ. Question by Dr. Woodrow: Give a formal definition of heresy. A. Heresy is a view which involves a serious departure from the funda- mental elements of the gospel or from the vital teachings of the Calvinistic theology. Q. Was it heresy as now defined that you said you did not believe Dr. Woodrow was guilty of? A. It was. Question by Dr. Jones: You said that you believed at the time of the Synod of South Carolina Dr. Woodrow's views were not heresy. Do you think so now? ( Ruled out of order by ISIoderator, chiefly on the ground that Dr. Girardeau was not a member of the court, and this would be bring- 568 MY LIFE A^'D TI^rES. ing an outside influence to bear upon the body. An appeal taken and not sustained. Question not answered.) (Signed) J. L. Girardeau. Evidence for the Defence. Dr. Woodrow called as witness for the defence the prosecutor, the Rev. Dr. Adams. Dr. William Adams sworn: Q. You prepared this indictment? A. Yes. Q. Had you assistance? I had. Q. What? A. I had a young gentleman wiio acted as my amanu- ensis. I corresponded with several brethren on the subject, and I wrote my indictment from the best information I could get from friends of the church of God, and from law books and the standards of the church. And I regard this question as an insult. Q. You refer to law books. In ascertaining what is an offence, did you employ the Book of Church Order as adopted by the Presby- terian Church in the United States, or the Book of Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America? A. If the defendant will examine the indictment, he will see what books they are to which I have referred; inasmuch as the book is there quoted and chapters and sections referred to. Q. Where in the Book of Church Order do you find the promulga- tion of opinions which are of a dangerous tendency, and which are calculated to unsettle the mind of the church respecting the accu- racy and authority of the Holy Scriptures as the infallible rule of faith, described as an oflfence? A. The question embodies a consider- able argument. I have the answer in my argument, and I decline to answer now. The object of the defendant was to perforate my speech. Q. Is anything to be considered by any court as an offence or ad- mitted as matter of accusation, which cannot be proved to be such from Scripture as interpreted in the standards? A. I decline to answer. You will find the answer in the Book of Church Order Presbyterian Church United States. Q. Do you say that it was not under a recollection of the Book of Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America? A. I do. Q. What is your object in this prosecution? A. My object is cer- tainly not to kill you either ecclesiastically or socially or physically, not for one moment to draw any great gulf between you and your brethren either of presbytery or church. It is that this court of the Lord Jesus Christ, responsible to the church at large, and for the purity of whose doctrines it is now responsible before God, shall, if it find that your teachings with respect to the body of Adam are CONTROVERSII<;S OF SCIENCE. 5 GO Contrary to the word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church, admonish you to cease from those teachings in any place, shape or form. Q. If I had resigned my professorship in the Seminary last Jan- uary, would you have instituted this prosecution? A. It is very doubtful. For this reason: When I was before the Synod of Georgia defending the action of the Presbytery of Augusta, I made use of these words, "It is far better that opinions of this nature, though deemed erroneous, should be left to their operation ujjon the mind of the individual who entertains them, than that they should be elevated to an adventitious importance by being made the subject of judicial investigation. I know it is a little hard upon the authors of them thus to treat them with neglect, but it is invariably the most eflfective way to cure themselves and to kill their crotchets. The fact that the teaching of them has been prohibited in the Seminary constitutes no ground of claim for their examination by presbytery."' That was all the length to which I was willing to go. The defendant persists in remaining in the Seminary, demanding all along this trial, and these repeated demands and refusal to abandon his chair had much to do with the prosecution of this case before the presbytery. Had he retired from the Seminary, I for one was willing that he should pursue these investigations to the ut- most. But instead of that he continued in the capacity of an official teacher of our church, and I had no other alternative from my sense of duty to the church of God, and to the institution of which I was a director, but to bring him before this court. Q. Did you ever use words to this effect, "Dr. Woodrow remains intact, and unless some good angel persuades him to tender his resignation, his case will come before the Augusta Presbytery. That body will meet in this city early in next year, and steps will be taken for his trial upon the merits of the question"? A. I did, O my prophetic soul ! Q. Then you instituted the prosecution because that good angel did not speak? A. I entered upon this prosecution not only because of all Dr. Woodrow had said and taught in the addresses before the Alumni and the Synod of South Carolina, but because of Dr. Wood- row's insisting that he must have a trial before he would surrender his professorship, and because, up to the time of the institution of this process, Dr. Woodrow was flooding the country with his views. My feelings deepened as the agitation went on. Q. Did Dr. Woodrow ever say that he either would or would not resign without or with a trial? A. Every member of the Board of Directors of the Seminary understood that to be his position. I think the church did at large — I so understood it. Q. What was the basis of that understanding? A. Dr. Woodrow 570 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. wrote us a letter in which he declared that his honor was at stake, and that for his honor he could not resign. Dr. Woodrow looked in my face at the presbytery in Augusta and said, "I am teaching it, I have taught it, I have four thousand constituents to whom I am teaching it, and you are responsible for it until you give me a trial." Q. Had that remark of mine any reference to the Seminary, and did it give you reason to think that when tried I would change my relation to the Seminary? A. I understood it to embrace the entire outcome of your mind on that subject in the city of Columbia, in the publications of which you are the editor, in the classes in the college where you are a professor. I understand now that if you are tried by your presbytery, and it finds your teachings are what they are declared to be in the indictment, there is conscience enough in the church of God to stop your teachings. Q. Did you offer Dr. \^'oodrow that you would withdraw this prosecution if he would cease these teachings? A. I did; and if there is one event in my ministerial history of which I am glad, it is that. After tlie Assembly had interpreted your teachings as con- trary to the word of God. I then came to you as a brother and said (Letter * in evidence read) . Q. What is an offence? A. Book of Church Order, consecutive Par. 152, first sentence. *AUGUSTA, Ga., ilay -Zlth. Rev. Dr. James M'oodroxc : Dear Brother, — Will you allow me to address you this letter upon the issue still between us? In your closing remarks before the Assem- bly yesterday, you used the following words : "I have always shown a loyal adherence to every deliverance of this church," and you imme- diately added this sentence : "The settled policy of our church is that an in thesi deliverance has no legal force, and while it is to be obeyed unless in opposition to the constitution of our church and the word of God, it is not to be olieyed l)y any one who believes it is in opposition to these. To him who so Ijelieves it is totally devoid of any sem- blance of authority." This, of course, leaves everything uncertain with regard both to your and my attitude in the controvery involved in the charges which I have preferred against you. I had hoped, and still hope, the deliverance of the Assembly will induce you to give an assurance that you will not further advocate your views on evolution in any way before the church or the public, and that you will with- draw at once from the Seminary ; and lest the impending trial before our Presbytery should embarrass any such declaration, I was ready to say to you, that if you felt inclined to give the Assembly such an assurance. I would withdraw the charge against you. I do not, of course, ask you to do this, although it would not be improper for me not only to ask it, but, in the interest of our beloved church, to be- seech it ; but what I do say is. that if you are now inclined to give this assurance, I shall at once declare the charges withdrawn. Very sincerely yours, W. Adams. CONTBOVERSIE8 OF SCIENCE. 571 Q. Did you make that offer in view of a prospective change in my principles, or is it not confined to my teaching? A. I have been all along an advocate for Dr. Woodrow to prosecute his investigations. I am not here to choke Dr. Woodrow's convictions down his own throat, but I am here to insist that so long as he subscribes to the standards of our church, he shall not officially teach anything con- trary to the word of God as interpreted in those standards. Q. Do I understand you, then, that you are willing that a fellow- presbyter shall hold principles contrary to the word of God? A. No, sir, not if they are fundamental principles. I am not willing that an official teacher shall hold them when he swears to believe in something else. Q. Do you regard the accused here as having sworn to believe in something else? A. That I will develop in my argument. Q. You are willing, without instituting prosecution against him, that a fellow-presbyter should hold views which are inconsistent with the peace and purity of the church, and the honor and majesty ■of the Lord Jesus Christ as King and Head thereof? A. No, when that man swears that he will not hold those views. I belieA'e a man may hold views which are not in harmony with our standards or with the word of God, provided he does not declare those views as a public teacher. Take the millennimn and other such minor ques- tions. But I hold that no oflicial teacher in our church has a right to hold and teach any views diametrically contrary to our stan- dards. Q. Under which of those heads do you class my views? A. Under the latter and that against the peace of the churcli. Q. Would I have authority to act as an official teacher in the church if I withdrew from the Seminary? A. Yes. Q. Y^ou would then be willing that I should have authority to preach and hold those doctrines at the same time? A. Yes. Q. Would you regard that as consistent with duty? A. Yes, I •do not consider it my duty to bring any brother before a presbytery for whatever private opinions he held in his own mind or heart. Q. Suppose I was an atheist at heart and did not teach it, and you should come to know it, would you regard it as your duty to prosecute me? A. If you said nothing about it and were merely holding these views and prosecuting your studies, I could not bring prosecution against you because I would know nothing about them. Q. Suppose T had been teaching atheism and you had instituted process against me, would you offer, under any circumstances, to withdraw that prosecution if I would promise to remain silent? A. Certainly not. But there is no analogy between the two cases. That is fundamental. This I have never so regarded. Q. So then my offence is not sufficiently grave as that the mere 572 MY LIFE AND TIMES. holdintr of my views would constitute a ground for judicial process? A. If the defendant held these views to himself without teaching them in any shape or form, I should not feel called upon to institute process against him: but if he held the views of an atheist, and I could bring those views liome to him. then I should be bound to prosecute him. In the one case, as is now before us, 1 look for ad- monition of the defendant; in the other case, I should look for ex- communication. Dr. Woodrow not only holds, but teaches his views. The holding and teaching are distinct parts of my charge against him. If Dr. Woodrow only held them, then the question would be relevant to the case; but they are both held and taught. Q. Is the holding of such views consistent witli tlie purity of the church? A. I doubt whether it is. Holding them as you hold them now is hurtful to the purity of the church. Q. Regarding the holding of these views as hurtful to the purity of the church, you were willing to withdraw the prosecution, were you? A. Yes, provided the defendant would give the assurance that he would not teach them in any form and would step down from his position as an official teacher. Q. Define heresy. A. All error is heresy. The Baptist is a heretic from a Presbyterian standpoint; so the Methodists are heretics. They teach doctrines contrary to the word of God as interpreted in the standards of our church. But the heresy which we would regard in an instance of this sort must amount to a direct contradiction of some fundamental truth of our religion, such as the divinity of Christ or other vital doctrines. Q. You have said that Dr. Woodrow is not guilty of heresy, have you not? A. I have, in tlie sense of violating a fundamental doc- trine of the Scriptures. Q. In what sense did you say Dr. Woodrow is guilty of lieresy? A. Book of Church Order, consecutive Par. 200. I draw a distinction between the violation of a fundamental truth and the teaching of a doctrine on an unessential subject to salvation contrary to God's word as interpreted in the standards. The one I regard as heresy, the other as error. (The point of order was here raised that this question related to Dr. Adams's opinion, and should not be answered. The Moderator ruled that, as this class of questions had been allowed to go on so long, this would also be allowed.) Q. Then my error does not strike at the vitals of religion? (With- drawn.) Q. Have you ever said that my "views placed the Bible on trial, Presbyterian Church on trial, and struck at the very vitals of re- vealed religion"? A. Yes. Q. But that is not the higher heresy? A. It is not. (Signed) Wm. Adams. CONTROVEKSIES OF SCTP:XCE. 573 Dr. Adams cross-exatnines himself. Q. Why did you say that at the Synod of Georgia and then after- wards modify your views on the subject? A. I was tlien in the presence of a man who, for the first time, had come before our Synod to advocate and chiim the right to teach and hold the views which he had advanced in his addresses before the Ahimni Association and the Synod of South Carolina. I was also in the presence of a con- siderable body of brethren who appeared to be in sympathy with liini and to sustain him in the Synod. This man was a professor in ■one of our sacred schools of learning, and among those who sympa- thized with him was another professor in the same institution. I saw then, what I believe I see now, that if that doctrine were allowed by the Synods controlling — or one of the Synods — the pro- fessor and the institution, the very Synod of which he was a mem- ber— to be taught in its name and by its authority to the ministry coming into the church, that it would not only strike at the very vitals of our church, but that our church must necessarily crumble to pieces under such teaching. But when the Synod repudiated the views that were then advocated, and appointed and authorized its representatives as directors of the Columbia Seminary to take what- ■ever steps were necessary to stop this teaching, my views then, as to the eftects of the teaching, were considerably modified. When, there- fore, I had to come officially to consider whether the views held by the defendant could be fairly classified under the head of gross, flagrant heresy, I could not so designate them. And after this decision of the Synod, I was unwilling to arraign the brother before a court of the church under this charge. Q. Will you more fully explain wha+ you mean in your answer to the questions as to the definition of heresy? A. If the defendant Avere to affirm, to hold, and to teach that the proper mode of baptism is that of immersion, and only adult believers are proper subjects for that ordinance, he would be liable to an indictment, under these Tvules of Discipline, for teaching and promulgating an opinion and doctrine contrary to the word of God as interpreted in the standards of this church. Technically I admit that our Book would hold him under the charge of heresy, inasmuch as it would be an offence wliich would be a proper object of judicial process. But no man, living or dead, could induce me to speak of him as a heretic. 1 would still hold that he was in error, and such error as would in- volve judicial censure. But if he came before this presbytery under the charges of an atheist or a Socinian, if he denied the atonement of Christ or repudiated any other saving truth of the Christian religion, then I would not hesitate to speak of him as a heretic. I admit that the Book would hold him for both offences under the .same charge of iieresy: but I hold that the Book itself makes a clear 574 MY LIFE AND TIMES. distinction between these two kinds of heresy, inasmuch as it makes a. distinction between the kinds of censure which the court has to pronounce upon the person found guilty under these rules. I think that these degrees of censures are deposition, suspension and admonition; and, therefore, while I fully admit that the definition of the Book and my general way of talking and thinking on this subject are different, and as I cannot hold any man as a heretic who does not repudiate some saving truth of our religion, yet I am conscious that the Book does itself technically so regard him. (Signed) Wii. Adams. For the Prosecution.* Dr. Adams, in behalf of the prosecution, said he was glad that at last this nuieh-agitated matter was to be sub- mitted to calm judicial investigation, or what so far had been such. He appealed for the dignity of the secular courts and the mechanical and professional forbearance of lawyers. No question of moral character was at stake. The only point was the correctness of the views held and taught by Dr. James Woodrow. Were they in accord with the scrip- tures as interpreted by the Presbyterian Church stan- dards ? Let us divest the question of personal feeling, said he. There is no room for prejudice. Let the ques- tion come up on its merits — the law and the evidence. This is no time for sympathy or partisanship. Let each man go into his own conscience and ask before God what is the truth in this case. This is one of the most im- portant cases that ever came into the courts of this church. We are friends to Christ — to his church and his truth — and human friendship cannot stand before these. We stand before a crisis in the church. Fidelity to the de- fendant, our own convictions and consciences, to the church of Christ — which church is the prosecutor, and not the Imnible speaker — demands impartial judgment. We are not called on to try Dr. Woodrow on the question of evolution, either as an abstract principle or scientific hypothesis. Evolution is the road along which he has * This outline of Dr. Adams's argument is copied from the Au- gusta Chronicle. The argument, at least the greater part of it, was written, and was read to the presbytery. CONTKOVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 575 come, and which has landed him where he is. Hence we have only to do with evolution as it relates to the charge of teaching opinions and doctrines against scripture as interpreted hj the standards of this church. First charge — Teaching and promulgating doctrines contrary to scripture as inteTpreted by the standards. Dr. Adams read from the alumni address delivered by Dr. Woodrow in May, 1884, in Columbia. He read Dr. Woodrow's definition of evolution. Then he proceeded to set forth what he conceived to be the dangerous errors which must flow from Dr. Wood- row's hypothesis. This, then, is the road along which Dr. Woodrow has travelled. ISTow, let us see where it has left him. He be- lieves that God's word teaches that man's soul was im- mediately created — his spiritual nature came into ex- istence by a fiat of the Almighty. Eve Avas not derived from ancestry, but was miraculously formed by the Al- mighty. As Adam's body was derived, the higher from the lower, then Adam, so far as he is an animal, must have been formed as other animals, by evolution. There is no suggestion of divine supernatural intervention. Had he been combating the interposition of God, he could not have stated his argument more clearly, more strongly. That is in fact what he does state. Then xVdam is formed as other animals. The spiritual nature had especial divine intervention to create it, he says. Dr. Woodrow makes distinct recognition of divine intervention. On this point. Dr. Woodrow had said he did not know what dift'erence obtained in the birth of a horse and of Adam's body — created from ancestors unlike themselves and passing through the same kind of changes. God made the form from which each sprang to pass through similar changes. Dr. Woodrow knew of nothing, he said, in the Bible to contradict this view. Then, just as the horse came, Adam came. You must say to-day, is this to be a doctrine in your church, founded on the scriptures, as in- terpreted by the standards ? Are you prepared to make this admission ? 'Tor myself," said Dr. Adams, ^'I am not afraid to trust the answer to this question to you." 576 MY T.TFK AM) TIMES. Dr. Adams said that Dr. Woodrow had used the terms "probably true," '"does it not seem probable," etc. "Does this mean that the Doctor is trying to bore a loophole in an emergency like the present, or that he is not certain abont his own views ? I could wish that the gentlenum had had greater courage of his- convictions. It is just this sort of statement that involves serious and fatal conse- quences the world over. Insinuation is dangerous and far reaching. All this, too, is to say that the standards of the church are "probabl,y false." If he has gone this length in carrying a doctrine which he believes to be only "'probably true," he has a tremendous responsibility. But we are led to believe that he has studied the whole ques- tion, and believes in it. Has this change in his views of late years been made merely to a peradventure 'I He was a believer, however, that the reasons against the theory of evolution are of little weight, and that there are many good grounds to believe that it is true. We are to accept his authorities cited as an evidence of the fixedness of his views. He first confronted the question as an opponent, then as a doubter, and finally a disciple. "The question is not whether or not evolution is taught in the Bible, but what do the scriptures, as interpreted by our standards, speak of the creation of Adam's body 'i The scriptures and standards both speak of this subject. To say that they are silent is foolish and misleading. The intention of this is insulting to the ministry. The Bible and the Confession of Faith both give accounts of the im- mediate making of man. The subject cannot be expunged from the word of God. I should hesitate to embrace any doctrine not found, as Dr. Woodrow says his is not, in the word of God. When it is on a question of my relations to God, I will not accept a doctrine not spoken of in the scriptures." The defendant had received the standards and Cate- chisms of the church, and had sworn to adopt them as being the combined wisdom of the church. Having sworn to do this, he could not exercise the right of private judg- ment to teach any other doctrine. "You may smile, my brother, but this is true. It may be a bad doctrine, but when mv church says one thing I cannot sav another. CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 577 This lies at the very foundation of the law and the church. l)r. Woodrow is bound by the story of creation in the standards, just as by other rules. There are but two ways of remedy. Either have the standards altered, or else step down and out ! Xcither of these has been done." Dr. Adams read rules of interpretation. It is not needed to interpret what is not obscure already. The lan- guage of the Confession of Faith on creation was plain, and led to nothing absurd. This said that man's body was created "after all other creatures." Dr. Woodrow's the- ory was that it was being created along with the other creatures all the time. The standards are also clear as to the fact of the crea- tion. '"How did God create man ?" Was it by slow pro- cess of evoliition from the body of an insect or an animal ? The standards were not silent as to the mode. If they liad not known how the body Avas made, they would have said so. But the standards are clear and explicit. Thank God for tlie answer. ''He created man, male and female, after all other crea- tures"— that was when he did it. ISTow, how did he do it 'i He formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground and the woman out of the rib of the man. He endowed ihem with souls and made them in "his own image." l^ot out of one animal or two animals, but out of the dust of the ground in his own image. '•'WTiy interpret what does not need interpretation ? I Iiave sometimes tliought that this emergency must have been foreseen, and this definition was put in exactly to meet this theory. "The church has already accepted this interpretation. If the plain meaning of the law is stated, the courts have no right to put their interpretation on it. The intention of the law-maker must be taken into consideration when construing an act — not the theory of scientific investiga- tion, but the intendment of the law-maker. Did the West- minster divines mean to say that the body of man was evolved ? Did they have any such conception ? Did they mean that we could put any construction we wanted on this law? Until recently the idea of evolution never ■da^Anied on the student of the Bible. Xo new meaning 578 MY LIFE AND TIMES. should be put into the standards hy any stretcli of the fancy or subtlety of argument. "Dr. Woodrow professes to have faith in the absolute inerrancy of the word of God. How does this hold him in the account of the creation ? He indulges in nebulous language in defining 'dust of the ground.' He allows the sharp definitions of the term to disappear. If 'dust' means what we believe it to mean, and not what he be- lieves it to mean, his whole structure falls to the ground. He builds his new meaning of dust on the curse of the serpent which was condemned to eat dust all his days. A& the food of the serpent was flesh and blood and bone^ therefore the body of man was made of flesh and blood and bone. But the serpent was to go forever on his belly ; this proneness of his body was to bring him nearer to his food. The defendant should have remembered this point when gathering up his dust theory. The sting of the curse was that he should eat 'dust of the ground.' If this dust meant flesh and blood and bone, it was a sumptuous meal for a curse. God did not starve him. "The standards of our church admit of no such travesty as this. Creation was a sudden and supernatural act of God. The deliverance of the Augusta General Assembly was no new princi]ile ; but it was an interpretation which had been recognized long ago — an honest declaration of what the standards meant. The standards were not made to enable the Bible to rush into the arms of science. They are too staid to encourage this frolicsome lover — this spawn of atheism. The Bible forl)ids the banns. "The standards and the defendant do not agree on this subject. He adopts the theory of man's descent by modi- fication. They say he was created out of dust of the ground. Where is the sophism of 'non-contradiction' V Dr. Adams said this presbytery, if it should acquit Dr. Woodrow, must declare the church in error. The highest court of the church had but three months ago made its declaration. Shall it be said that evolution is to be en- dorsed by the Augusta Presbytery ? Your votes will go down to posterity. Dr. Adams said he considered it an honor to come into this historic church with the seal and chart of the Cove- CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 579 nanters before him, and be allowed to stand up for truth and for the church. He had not spoken with personal bitterness. His Irish nature did not admit of malice. There was in his heart no resentment towards his breth- ren. He spoke for two hours and forty minutes, and made a powerful effort. For the Defence.* Dr. Woodrow began by saying that he had long been earnestly desiring the coming of this day. For more than two years, charges of heresy, of unscriptural teaching, had been made against him in various regions by great num- bers of persons; charges which he pronounced slanders, as long as they were made by those who did not attempt to prove them before the proper tribunal. Until now these charges have been constantly reiterated by those who had not the courage to formulate them and endeavor to establish their truth in a church court according to law — where the accused might meet his accusers face to face. Therefore, whatever was the object of this prosecution, even though it might be one with which this presbytery had nothing to do, he sincerely thanked his prosecutor for having instituted it. He had been glad that at the outset his prosecutor had strenuously urged that the case should be tried according to the law and the evidence — the law being, of course, the scriptures as interpreted in our standards. But he was disappointed that he did not adhere to this righteous principle, but in the close of his argument had insisted that the presbytery should be controlled in its judgment, not by the law, but by a deliverance of the Augusta Gen- eral Assembly, He trusted that no one would thus be led away from right and justice. He then proceeded to examine the second part of the "■ Professor Woodrow had no notes of his remarks ; and, therefore, in this outline, it is impossible to reproduce his words. Many things which he said are doubtless omitted, and probably there are some additions; but this report is thought to be a fair representa- tion of the substance and general tenor of his speech. nSO MY LIFE AND TIMRR. indictinent, wliicli charged him with teaching; "opinions which are of a dangerous tendency, and which are calcu- lated to unsettle the mind of the church," because these o))inions are said to be contrary to what is "universally understood by the church to be the d(»claration of the word of God." He showed that, under our Rules of Discipline, such an indictment could not stand; for according to these "nothing ought to be considered by any court as an offence, or admitted as a matter of accusation, which can- not be proved to be such from scripture, as interpreted in these standards," Under the Northern Presbyterian Dis- cipline, indeed, it is also that "which, if it be not in its own nature sinful, may tempt others to sin, or mar their spiritual edification." And, further, the test by which anything is proved to be an offence is not solely the scrip- ture as interpreted in the standards, but "the regulations and practice of the church" — that which is "universally understood by the church." But happily we have no such law. But for the prosecutor's denial, it would have been reasonable to continue to believe that he had framed this part of the indictment according to the I^orthern Disci- pline and not according to ours. He never had sworn and never would swear that he would be guided by what the church "universally under- stood," nor had they. It was by the Bible and the stan- dards alone that they could try him, or that he would con- sent to be tried. It Avas at one time "universally understood" by the church, even at the time when the Westminster Assembly was sitting and long after, that the sun moved, and that the earth stood still ; yet he might hold the contrary doc- trine, provided it did not contradict the Bible. His studies largely lay outside those with which the church is directly concerned ; and he might, and no doubt did, hold many beliefs at variance with what was "universally understood" by the church ; but he was guilty of no of- fence unless he held beliefs contrary to the Bible as inter- preted in the standards. "As to the special change of view about which so much is said, let me state what it was. Twenty-six or twenty- seven vears ago, when the doctrine of evolution was CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 581 brought to the attention of the thinking world in a more striking way than it had ever been before, in common with most students of natural history, I refused to accept it as true. After some years, I reached the conclusion that, with certain limitations, its truth was not a matter that in any way concerned the believer in the Bible, for, with these limitations, it did not in the least contradict the teachings of the Bible. This conclusion was reached while I still thought that the preponderance of evidence was greatly against its truth. I continued my study of various departments of nature as industriously as I could; and in the spring of 1884, when preparing an address on evolution, I carefully summed up the evidence I had been accumulating all the previous years, and I was forced to come to the conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence is now in favor of its truth. Just as soon as I formed this opinion, I published it to the church and to the world. Every day's study since has increased the preponderance of the evidence in favor of evolution as God's plan of creation, in my opinion ; while I am still far from thinking that it is demonstrated to be true. I am more and more convinced of the truth of the views set forth in my address and the other articles enumerated in the indictment, and believe that in proportion as they are fairly and intelligently studied will they be accepted as not inconsistent with the Bible as interpreted in our standards. It was not necessary to introduce witnesses to prove that I am the author of these addresses and edi- torial articles. I have no desire to repudiate my own children — they are too dear to me. "But I now ask you to examine the testimony to which you have listened, and consider its bearing on the case. Remember that the question you are called on to decide is, are the opinions and doctrines which I have taught in conflict with the sacred scriptures as interpreted in our standards ? Now, look at the evidence relied on to prove that they are. Dr. Girardeau tells you that when he heard my address, he was surprised, gratified, and subse- quently that he was convinced it would agitate the church, that he must oppose, and, 'in accordance with a resistless sentiment of honor, resign his professorship.' Well^ 582 MY LIFE AND TIMES. M'liat is there in all this to show that tlierc was anything in the address contrary to the scriptures '( And what lias all he said as to my inaugural address to do with the question of my guilt ? Or that he had never before heard the expression 'organic dust' 'I Or that I had not been able to affect the opinions of my students ? Or that the origin of the doctrine of evolution is philosophical and not the result of Christian research ? Or even that it has been used by the majority of those who hold it for infidel purposes i Admit all this to be true, how does it prove or in any way affect the question of my guilt ? In view of the utter worthlessness of this testimony, I am suprised that the prosecutor should have thought it worth while to bring this witness all the way from the middle of South Carolina during this extremely hot weather simply to give it. I cannot understand it. Can it be that there Avere additional objects ? Is it possible that he brought him in the guise of a witness to assist in the prosecution, or to operate as the witness tells you he desired and ex- pected his fellow-worker to do at the Georgia Synod in llarietta ? It surely cannot have been solely to give the testimony to Avhich you have listened. ''But if you suppose that the testimony of this witness raises a presumption that I must be guilty of something, I ask you to look at it more closely, and see how plainly the bias of the witness against the accused is shown, and how seriously, though unintentionally of course, this af- fects the value of his testimony. The answers of the witness during the cross-examination show you his zeal — his 'powerful zeal' — in striving to secure my condemna- tion. And you saw how it affected both his memory and his judgment. He told you that, as my colleague, he could not oppose my view, even privately, without first apprising me of the convictions of his own mind, and accordingly he had come to me personally and acquainted me with the posture of his mind — forgetting that he had already, in a secular paper in Columbia, published to the Avorld his opposition to his colleague's views. Then his judgment is so affected by his zeal that he tells you that my teaching in the Seminary on the subject of evolution was prohibited ; Avlien in fact the teaching was not pro- COXTROVEESIES OF SCIENCE. 583 hibited, but merely was disapproved, except in a purely expository manner — the only manner in which I ever had taught being purely expository. Then he oould not re- member that I had said at synod that my views had undergone a change; but he remembered I gave an ac- count of a visit to Europe. Yet at that meeting he heard a letter from me read by Mr. W. A. Clark, in which I distinctly stated the change; and since then that letter has been published in a journal which he has told you he receives. He could remember nothing of that, but he remembered that I gave an account of a visit to Europe — which had nothing whatever to do with the matter in hand. 'Tie has told you that evolution has been used for infidel purposes, but did not know that my hypothesis had been so used. Why then did he say anything about it, unless it was with the intention of easting on me the odium which attaches to those who hold doctrines entirely different from mine ? But suppose the doctrine did originate with infidels. Does that prove it to be false and contrary to scripture 'i Is chemistry to be condemned if Lavoisier was an infidel ? Is democracy to be scorned because Jefferson was an infidel ? "But Dr. Girardeau tells you that he has no idea that it originated in Christian research. lie is certainly right in that statement. How could it have so originated ? Chris- tian research occupies itself with the Bible, with investi- gating the infinitely important truth which it contains. But evolution, as we are now concerned with it, is a doc- trine relating to natural history. How could it occur to any one that it could be otherwise ? Everybody knows that. Surely it was not necessary to bring this 'expert' so far, in hot weather, to prove it. But what then ? Be- cause it did not originate in Christian research, is it thereby proved to be false ? Did astronomy originate in Christian research ? Or geology ? Or any doctrine in physics, or chemistry ? Or any other doctrine in natural history ? "But further examine Dr. Girardeau's statement that 'the doctrine of evolution has been used for infidel pur- poses by the majority of those who hold it.' Xow, how 584 MY I.IKE AND TIMES. does he know that i As he has told yon, his reading in science is limited. He conld not know it nnless all the scientific men of the world had been ])olled with refer- ence to this ])oint and the truth thus ascertained. Has he ever so polled them i Has he any evidence that it has been done ^ He has no such evidence; he could have none. Therefore, he could not know that what he as- serted is true. Yet he has solemnly testified to it as a fact, in order to prove my guilt. I am amazed to see any one so under the influence of prejudice as to give such testimony." Dr. Girardeau here arose. He said he was not a mem- ber of this court, and had no right here. But Dr. Wood- row had assaulted him, he said ; had maintained that he was surprised at what Dr. Girardeau had sworn. "1 ask," said Dr. (jirardeau, "that Dr. Woodrow retract that lan- guage." ^ Dr. Woodrow: "What did 1 say?" Dr. Girardeau : "I think he charged me with perjury." Dr. Woodrow: "^lost assurcMlly I did not. I only said I was surprised to find Dr. Girardeau so under the influ- ence of error as to say that the majority of those who had taught evolution did so for infidel purposes, when he could not possibly know it to be true." Dr. Girardeau : '^If you retract the charge of perjury, T have nothing more to say." Dr. Woodrow: '*I do not retract it, for T did not make it. I will assure Dr. Girardeau that I did not charge what he supposed I did." Dr. Girardeau sat down. "'I ask now," continued Dr. Woodrow, ''if you are go- ing to convict me on such testimony as this. I do not intend to discuss here the question whether or not the doctrine of evolution is true ; for I would regard the discussion of a question of pure science as a profanation of a court of the Lord Jesus Christ. The sole question that can rightly be considered here is, does that doctrine contradict the scriptures ? "I do not think it necessary to connuent at lenotli on Dr. Adams's testimony. It speaks for itself. It was clearly shoAvn that the prosecutor's object is not tbe pres- CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 585 Lyter, but the professor; and that if the professor had only resigned, the presbyter would never have been dis- turbed. So it is not the presbyter who is prosecuting, but it is the Seminary director on his own behalf and on be- half of those who by correspondence and otherwise aided him in this prosecution. But it is needless to review tes- timony in which the witness asserts that one holding Views which placed the Bible on trial and struck at the vitals of revealed religion' is not guilty of holding that which 'violates a fundamental doctrine of the scriptures.' After the answers in the direct examination, it was hardly necessary for him to say, Avhen he was cross- examining himself, that he 'fully admitted that the defi- nition of the Book and his general way of talking and thinking on this subject are different.' "(Joming now to the prosecutor's argument, I may say that it is hardly worth my while to reply to it, for it Avas based on a total misconception of my teachings. He has, in a singularly grotesque way, misapprehended my views. It would be very unsafe for the presbytery to base any action on the interpretation of those views given by the prosecutor. For example, he reads from my address (page 15) to prove to you that I hold that the Bible teaches evolution. He overlooks the fact that I begin the paragraph by saying that 'if that which is perhaps the most commonly received interpretation of the biblical record is correct,' then that is the case. But it must be apparent to every reader of the address that I do not be- lieve that interpretation to be correct. And I have said over and over in the address, in many forms, and even in some of the passages which Dr. Adams read to you, that I believe 'that the scriptures are almost certainly silent on the subject.' Hence this mistake of the prosecutor is in- excusable. "Again, he makes the amusing and amazing mistake of regarding certain statements of fact in the address as parts of my anti-scriptural teaching. He so understands, for example, what I say on page 23 : 'We cannot go back to the beginning, but we can go a long way. The outline thus obtained shows us that all the earlier organic beings in existence, through an immense period, as proved by an 586 MY LIFE AND TIMES. immense thickness of layers resting on each other, were of lower forms, with not one as high or of as complex an organization as the fish. Then the fish appeared, and remained for a long time the highest being on the earth. Then followed at long intervals the amphibian, or frog- like animal, the reptile, the lowest mammalian, then grad- ually the higher and higher, until at length appeared man, the head and crown of creation.' l^ow, is it possible that Dr. Adams, or any person even slightly acquainted with these subjects, does not know that I am there stating a familiarly known fact '( "So he quoted to you as another part of my hypothetical teaching the following from page 25 : 'While it cannot be said that the human embryo is at one period an inverte- brate, then a fish, afterwards a reptile, a mammalian quadruped, and at last a human being, yet it is true that it has at one period the invertebrate structure, then suc- cessively, in a greater or less number of particulars, the structure of the fish, the reptile, and the mammalian quadruped. And in many of these particulars the like- ness is strikingly close.' Again I ask, is it possible that he does not know what is here stated to be a fact ? If he does not know it, is he capable of discussing the subject ? Or is it that he is ashamed of ever having himself been a quadruped ?" Mr. Morton : "Will Dr. Woodrow please explain what he means by saying that Dr. Adams was once a quad- ruped ?" Dr. Woodrow: "1 mean that man, before birth, passes through these intermediary stages." Dr. Adams: "Who said I was ashamed?" "iNTow, if Dr. Adams so completely, so laughably, mis- understands my address, not being able to distinguish between elementary and familiarly knoM^n facts and my supposed anti-scriptural hypotheses, can it be worth while for me to attempt to reply to arguments based on such errors ? "Then, further, the prosecutor has intimated to you that all that I say as to my regarding my hypothesis as only 'probably true/ as 'seeming' to be so and so, etc., is the result of mere cowardice, and shows that I have not CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 587 the ^courage of my convictions' ; chat it is a mere trick by which I hope to have a way of escape if in danger of being convicted of heresy. But he exultantly pointed out that he had blocked up that cunningly devised way and had cornered me — that every now and then I had forgotten myself, and at such times had exposed my true senti- ments, showing that I believed firmly in my hypothesis as absolutely true, and hence all I said as to 'probable,' 'seems,' and the like, was a mere sham. And how does he prove this cowardice of mine and the sly cunning ? By showing that I state as facts, about which there is no doubt, the familiar truths quoted above ! — truths which he is incapable of distinguishing from the hypothesis of evolution ! Again I ask, need I reply to such arguments I "As to Dr. Adams's intimation that I ignore the agency of God in the creation of the world, of j^lants and animals, and of the body of the first man, I content myself with referring to the pamphlets and articles enumerated in the indictment ; I am willing to leave it to any fair-minded man to say whether there could possibly be a fuller recog- nition of God's present power and agency in every change, however slight, that takes place in any part of the uni- verse, than is to be found in them. But there is a prac- tical atheism which fails to see God except in his extra- ordinary and supernatural working. And those who are imder its influence, and who themselves, therefore, fail to recognize God's presence in all his ordinary, natural acts, instantly charge with a denial of God's presence and power those who regard a certain change as the result of Ood's ordinary methods instead of a supernatural inter- vention. I believe without difficulty and without hesita- tion every statement that God makes in his word as to his adopting unusual and supernatural ways of accomplish- ing his designs ; but I will always believe that he adopts Tiis usual natural methods, except when he in his word gives me reason to believe otherwise. "The chief point to be considered in determining my ■guilt or innocence I suppose to be the meaning of God's words: 'The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.' It is contended by those who believe me guilty, that dust of the ground means sand, clay, limestone, and 588 MY LIFE AND TIMES. the like, in a finely divided state — inorganic matter — and that it can mean nothing else ; that to refuse to believe that this is certainly the meaning is to disbelieve the word of God ; and hence, further, the formation of the body from the dust was direct, immediate. I maintain, on the other hand, that while this may be the meaning, it is not certainly so ; but that wliile God certainly formed the body from the dust of the ground, he may have done so indirectly, mediately ; that nothing is here certainly said to the contrary ; that is, that God's word does not decide the question one way or the other. If in saying this I am contradicting the Bible, then I am guilty as charged in the indictment ; if I do not thus contradict it, I do not contradict it at all, and I am innocent of the charge brought against me. I say nothing as to the standards ; for they simply repeat the language of the scriptures ; they do not undertake to interpret it. Hence it is un- necessary to say more respecting them. "a^ow let me ask you to accompany me as we examine how it pleases God to create the plants and animals with Avhicli he has covered the earth. You see that he forms the i)lant of earth, air, and water — inorganic matter ; but as the elements of the air and the water are found also in the earth, you may with equal propriety say he transforms the earth into the plant — he forms the plant-world of the dust of the ground. You see, further, that he constructs, the bodies of animals from plants ; the animal feeds on the plant directly or indirectly ; so the Lord God is form- ing before our eyes all his animals of the dust of the ground. What can be more true, then, than the assertion you are ready to make, that God has formed and is form- ing everything that has life, whether vegetable or animal, of the dust of the ground ? Xow, is it not possible that it is in this sense that God tells us that he formed man of the dust of the ground ? "Before you decide that this cannot be, remendjer that it is extremely common for God, from the beginning to the end of his word, to tell us that he does a certain thing, mentioning the fact that the thing done is his act, but without saying anything, or if anything, very little, as to his method of doing it. He speaks of tlic cause — liim^elf,, CONTROVKKSIES OF SCIEXCE. 589 and of the last step — the thing- done ; but in multitudes of cases he tells us little or nothing as to the intermediate steps. Such information would not be germane to the design he has in making known to us his will. Consider further the scripture usage of the word dust — numerous examples must be familiar to you — and I think that you will hesitate long before you decide that it is impossible that my suggestion may be true, and that I am certainly thereby contradicting God's word. The more I study that word, comparing scripture with scripture, the more fully convinced I am that what I have said is not contrary to it ; that it is impossible to assert positively that God's S])irit would here teach us anything whatever as to whether the formation of man's body from the dust of the ground was mediate or immediate. ''You have been told by Dr. Girardeau in his published speeches and here on the witness stand that my hypoth- esis is that 'Adam as to his body was born of animal par- ents;' that 'Adam as to his body was born of animal an- cestry;' that 'the existence of Adam's body preceded for vears the formation of Eve's body.' When he so signally failed to find any such statements in my writings, he insisted that his statements were good logical inferences from what I had written, and therefore that he had a right to attribute them to me. "Let us test the propriety of this by considering the view that God formed man immediately of inorganic mat- ter— of sand, clay, limestone, etc., in a finely divided state. Having first fixed our attention on the mass from which God was al)out to form man, let us next trace the history of the particles composing it, as far as we can. In common with all the rest of the matter of the earth, these particles were created millions of years ago. Follow them back as far as possible, and you will find that at one time they constituted parts of rocks more or less like granite in widely separated parts of the world ; these ex- posed to the weather gradually crumbled to powder ; and the loose particles were carried by rills of water down into larger streams, and so at length to the ocean. Here some were tossed by the tides, others sank into the depths, but all after awhile were made to unite with neighboring 500 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. particles by new combinations into other kinds of solid rock. This was heaved from the bed of the ocean, and again became part of the dry land. Then some of the particles having- again become dnst, wonld be transformed into plants, then into animals, and then wonld return to dnst again, while others wonld become the sport of the winds, whirled high in the air over the mountain top. And so, each particle, after an infinite variety of expe- riences, is brought at length, by the power of God, who has been watching over it and guiding it, as well as every other particle of matter in his universe, to the spot where, with its fellows, it is to receive the high honor of com- posing part of the first man. Xow, look back again over these numberless histories, and at the mass the particles form, and ask yourselves if yon have been tracing the history of 'Adam as to his body' ? Is the mass of in- organic matter lying there Adam's body ? Are those par- ticles rocked to the lullaby of the waves little Adams '? Or, those others which are careering over mountain and plain ? Or are the animals of which these particles once formed a portion the ancestors of xVdam as to his body ? And has it sprung from that plant ? Or do not such sug- gestions rather present a caricature which no one would venture to say constituted a good logical inference from the hypothesis we are considering? Xo; these particles were not 'Adam as to his body' ; they together in the mass were not that body ; and it is shockingly absurd to speak of it as such until God had fasliioncd it and made it man's body by uniting with it man's soul. ''Applying the illustration now presented, I think you cannot fail to see that Dr. Girardeau's representations of my hypothesis are not good logical inferences, but on the contrary are a horrible caricature." Dr. Girardeau, interrupting: "I declare them to be positively, absolutely true, and no misrepresentation." Dr. Wood row closed with an ap]3eal to the court, in the name of the AEaster and for the sake of the soids of men, that they should not by their verdict add to the word of God, and aid in blocking up the way of those who would fain press into the kingdom of heaven. Dr. Adams marie a brief closing speecji. Tie beo-nn by CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 591 indignantly repelling the intimations which had been made as to his object in bringing Dr. Girardeau as a wit- ness. He went on to say that his object was to elicit the testimony to which Ave had listened ; at least, that was the primary object ; though, of course, he was glad to have the benefit of his friend's counsel. After the prosecutor had closed, the roll was called, and the members of the court expressed their opinion in the cause. The vote was then taken, and resulted as follows : As to the first part of the indictment, Guilty, 9 ; not guilty, 14. As to the second part of the indictment, Guilty, G ; not guilty, 17. Dr. Adams, the prosecutor, gave notice that he would complain to the Synod of Georgia of the decision of the presbytery in the case, and also as to its refusal to allow him to vote, and other points. Records of the Syxod of Georgia in the Complaint Case of Kev. Wm. Adams, D. D., versus the Presbytery of Augusta, Tried Before the Synod, at Sparta, Ga., November 10-13, 1886. The Rev. Dr. Adams's "CompJairit or Appeal, or Both." Augusta, Ga., August 24, 1886. Tlie Presbyterian Churcli in the United States versus the Rev. James Woodrow, D. D. Grounds of comphiint or appeal, or both, against the Augusta Presbytery in the above ease, by the Rev. William Adams. "To the Presbytery of Augusta, Ga.: "Dear Brethren : Before your adjournment, at Bethany, on Tuesday, the 17th inst., I gave you notice that I would complain to the Synod of Georgia against your decision in the case of the Pres- byterian Church in the United States versus the Rev. James Wood- row. D. D. I now hereby formally enter my complaint and appeal to the said Synod against the said decision on the following grounds : "First, That your decision in acquitting the said James Wood- row of the charges preferred against him by myself is contrary to the evidence which had been submitted at the trial, and also con- trary to the law in the case. Second, That certain ruling elders. viz., H. D. Smith, of Bethany church, and John Trowbridge, of Waynesboro and Bath church, were allowed to vote unconstitution- 592 MY LIFE AND TliNIES. ally in the ease — the former, H. D. Smith, bcinc permitted to take his seat in the place of C. N. Jordan, who had already been enrolled as the alternate delegate, and who had voted at the election of the Moderator, and who had given no notice to presbytery that he wished to be relieved or desired to vacate his seat; and the latter, John Trowbridge, being allowed, by the ruling of the Moderator, to vote on the final issue, notwithstanding the fact that, pending the trial, he had absented himself from sittings of presbytery without permission of the court, and notwithstanding the distinct avowal of the prosecutor that, to his certain knowledge, the said John Trow- bridge liad been absent during a part of tlie reading of the minutes, which minutes consisted of the testimony. The ruling of the Mod- erator in this case was as follows : that, as he had heard all the testimony read, and had absented himself because of sickness, he was entitled to vote. Third, That the ruling of the Moderator was also unjust in refusing to allow one witness to express his own opinion, and insisting that another witness should give his opinion. The following is the record of the rulings referred to: When Dr. Girardeau was asked, 'You said that you believed at the time of the meeting of the Synod of South Carolina that Dr. Woodrow's views were not heresy. Do you believe so now'.'" — the Moderator ruled that the question was out of order ; but when the defendant asked the prosecutor, 'You have said that Dr. Woodrow is not guilty of heresy, have you not?' and when the point of order was raised that this question related to Dr. Adams's opinion, and should not be answered, the Moderator ruled that, as this class of questions had been allowed to go on so long, this question would also be allowed. Fourth, That the prosecutor was deprived of his lawful rights in the case by the ruling of the Moderator, 'that neither the prosecutor nor the accused could vote on the final issue.' ( See Rules of Discipline, Chap, v., Par. 3, as compared with Chap, vi.. Par. 10.) "I am truly and sincerely yours, Wm. Adams." Copy of Dr. Adams's letter, to which reference is made in the fol- lowing minutes: "Augusta, Ga., yovember 8, 188G. "liev. James titacy, D. D.. IStated Clerk of the tiiinod of Georgia: "Dear Brother: Before the adjournment of the Augusta Presby- tery at Bethany on Tuesday, August the 17th, I gave notice that I would complain to the Synod of Georgia against their decision in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States versus the Rev. James Woodrow, D. D. I now formally notify you of that action and hand you herewith a copy of said complaint as subse- quently i)ut into the hands of the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Augusta. I wisli also to give you notice that T withdraw the appeal CONTKOVEUSIES OF SCIENCE. 59^'] which I entered witli the complaint, and confine myself to the com- plaint alone. Should this notification of the withdrawal of the appeal be deemed insufficient, I respectfully ask the Synod to per- mit me to take this course. My reasons for this complaint are, first, my profound conviction that the decision of the Augusta Presbytery was unjust and hurtful to the church and contrary to the law and testimony, as fully specified in the complaint which is filed ; second, that grave errors were committed in course of the trial, which «rrors are specified in the complaint. "Fraternally yours, W. Adams." The complaint of Rev. Dr. Adams against the Presbytery of Au- gusta, with a letter to the Synod accompanying it, was referred to the Judicial Committee, together with all the papers in the case. Judicial Committee of the Synod — J. L. Rogers, E. H. Barnett, G. H. Cartledge, J. A. Billups, E. P. Eberhart. Rev. J. L. Rogers, chairman of the Judicial Committee, presented their leport on the complaint of Rev. Dr. Adams against the Presby- tery of Augusta. Permission was given to amend the complaint by striking out the words "or appeal, or both," and its consideration made the first order for to-morrow morning. The report of the Judicial Committee on the complaint against the Presbytery of Augusta, as the order of the day, was approved, and is as follows : "Your Judicial Committee would report, that in the complaint of Rev. William Adams, D. D., against the Augusta Presbytery, in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States versus James Woodrow, D. D., they find the papers in order, except that it pro- poses to "complain and appeal, or hothy The committee recom- mend that Dr. Adams be allowed to amend his paper and make it a complaint only; and recommend that Synod hear the case in the order prescribed in our Book of Church Order, as follows : First, that the record in the cause be read. Second, to hear the complain- ant. Tliird, to hear the respondent. Fourth, to hear the com- plainant again. Fifth, and then it shall consider and decide the case. J. L. Rogers, Chairman.'' It was resolved to enter at once upon the case, and the Moderator gave the required charge to the court. The record of the case was read, and after a recess of five minutes, the complainant was heard until the hour for recess, which was taken until half-past two •o'clock this afternoon. The unfinished business was resumed, and the complainant heard 504 MY LIFE AND miKS. to tlie close of his first argument. The appointment made on yester- (hiy for a foreign missionary meeting to-night was rescinded, in order to continue the case under consideration. Recess was taken for five minutes; after which the respondent — the Presbytery of Augusta — was heard through its appointed counsel, Rev. Dr. Wood- row, until recess was taken until seven o'clock to-night. Rev. Dr. Woodrow, as counsel for the Presbytery of Augusta, was tlieii lieard in the remainder of his argument; after which the com- plainant was heard in response. After this the roll was called, that members might express their opinion in the cause, the time to each being limited to three minutes. The complaint was then taken up seriatim. On the first count in the complaint the ayes and noes were called for and the vote stood: to sustain, 49; not sustain, L5; sustain in part, 2; as follows: To SvsTAis.— Ministers — G. H. Cartledge, C. W. Lane, H. F. Hoyt, J. L. Cartledge, James Stacy, H. Quigg, D. Fraser, J. L. Rogers, G. B. Strickler, E. H. Barnett, J. H. Alexander, J. E. DuBose, X. KefT Smith, A. S. Doak, Wm. McKay, H. C. Brown, I. W. Waddell. G. T. Chandler, N. H. Smith, M. McN. McKay, J. L. King, L. A. Simpson. Elders — L H. Cartledge, A. M. Scudder, J. M. Burns, E. P. Eber- hart, W. R. Little, G. C. Daniel, E. Huie, M. A. Candler, C. F. Fair- banks, L. F. Livingston, J. L. H. Waldrop, Geo. Lyon, J. T. Dolvin, H. D. Beman, F. White, J. A. Billups, W. H. Sherman, R. W. Gam- ble, W. C. Sibley, E. W. Allfriend, A. W. Blake, D. W. Orr, J. L. Lemons, W. M. Saye, T. W. Long, J. A. Barry, R. W. Love. XOT TO Sustain. — Ministers — J. R. Baird, J. L. Stevens, H. Xew- ton, F. T. Simpson, J. B. Morton, J. D. A. Brown, J. E. Jones, A. W. Clisby, B. D. D. Greer, W. A. Milner, J. W. Baker, W. A. Carter. Elders— A. R. Steele, P. II. Wright, L. N. Turk. To Sustain in Part. — Rev. Robert Adams, Rev. T. ]\I. Lowry. On the point of change of repiesentative from Jordan to Smith, sustained viva voce. On that of permitting Elder Trowbridge to vote, not sustained,. viva voce. Admission of evidence, sustained, on division, by 29 to 27. On that of not permitting tlie prosecutor to vote, not sustained, viva voce. A committee, consisting of Brethren Doak, Rogers, G. H. Cart- ledge, J. D. A. Brown, W. A. ]\Iilner, Billups and Candler, was ap- pointed to bring in a judgment of the Synod; and Synod adjourned till to-morrow morning at nine o'clock. Closed with prayer. Tiie committee to prepare a minute expressing the judgment of Synod in the case of the complaint against the Presbytery of Au- gusta, reported the following, which was adopted: CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 595 "Your committee, appointed by Synod to bring in a minute ex- pressive of the action of Synod upon the comphiint of William Adams, D. D., against the decision of Augusta Presbytery in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States against James Woodrow, D. D., and to report the judgment of Synod thereon, re- port that the complaint be sustained, for the reason that the finding and judgment of the presbytery are contrary to the evidence and the law, in that the evidence before the presbytery showed that the be- lief of the said defendant, James Woodrow, D. D., as to the origin of the body of Adam, was contrary to the word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church : and it is therefore ordered that the said verdict and judgment of the presbytery is hereby annulled. "A. S. DOAK, Ghairttma." Rev. Dr. Woodrow gave notice that he would complain to the General Assembly of Synod's action in his case; and Rev. Drs. G. B. Strickler and W. Adams and Elder J. A. Billups were appointed to represent Synod before the Assembly as respondent to this com- plaint. Since the adjournment of Synod, the Stated Clerk received the following communication from Dr. Woodrow: "University of South Carolina, "Columbia, S. C, November 20, 1886. "To the Rev. Dr. James Stacy, Stated Clerk of the Synod of (leorgia : "Rev. and Dear Sir: On tlie 13th inst. the Synod of Georgia adopted the following: 'Your committee, appointed by the Synod to bring in a minute expressive of the action of the Synod on the com- plaint of Wm. Adams, D. D., against the decision of the Augusta Presbytery, in the case of the Presbyterian Church against James Woodrow, D. D., and report the judgment of the Synod thereon, re- port that the complaint be sustained, for the reason that the finding and judgment of the presbytery are contrary to the evidence and the law, in that the evidence before the presbytery showed that the belief of said defendant, James Woodrow, D. D., as to the origin of the body of Adam, was contrary to the word of God, as interpreted by standards of the church. It is therefore ordered, that the judg- ment of the presbytery be hereby annulled.' "Thereupon I gave notice to the Synod that I would complain to the next General Assembly, which will hold its session at St. Louis, Mo., in May, 1887, against tliis decision. "My reason for so complaining is that the decision of the Synod is contrary to the law and the evidence. "Yours respectfully, James Woodrow." 59C MY LIFE AND TIMES. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Records of the Synod of Georgia in the coinphxint case of Rev. \Vm. Adams. D. D., versus tlie Presbytery of Augusta. James Stacy, Stated Clerk. Dr. Woodrow being providentially hindered by severe illness from prosecuting his complaint before the As- sembly at St. Louis, in 1887, that Assembly ordered his letter put on record. At the same Assembly overtures came up from the Presbyteries of South Carolina and Harmony, respecting evolution and the jurisdiction of the General Assembly, and the following is the action taken thereon. The Com- mittee of Bills and Overtures reported on overtures Kos. 17 and 18. A substitute was offered as follows: The undersigned, members of the Committee on Bills and Over- tures, would respectfully present the following minority report for the adoption of the General Assembly: To overtures from the Presbyteries of Harmony and South Caro- lina, respecting the jurisdiction of the General Assembly over all the affairs, institutions, and proceedings of the lower courts, the General Assembly met at St. Louis, 1887, gives answer: 1. That as our Constitution limits expressly the jurisdiction of each and all our church courts {Form of Government, Chap. V., Sec. 2, Par. 4), the General Assembly cannot lawfully exercise super- visory jurisdiction over the affairs, institutions, or proceedings of the lower courts, nor over their ofTice-bearers, except as these mat- ters shall come before the highest court in some one of the four con- stitutional modes prescribed in our Rules of Discipline, viz., review, reference, appeal or complaint. (See Rules of Discipline, Chap. XIII., Sec. 1.) Tlierefore the action of the last Assembly is declared unconstitutional, which claimed and exercised supervisory jurisdic- tion to the extent that it assumed to directly charge an office-bearer under the control of the four Synods with holding views repugnant to the word of God and our Confession of Faith, and thereupon earnestly reconnnended that he be dismissed from office. 2. Respecting the further question of South Carolina Presbytery, touching the mode of creation as defined by the last Assembly, we leconimend that this Assembly answer: That the scriptures clearly reveal that, in the highest sense, God is Creator of all things, and consequently of Adam's body and soul; and both the scriptures and our Confession of Faith teach that his body was formed of the dust of the ground, whether mediatelv or imniediatelv: but "the inscru- CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 597 table mode"' God hath not revealed, and this Assembly holds that it it is not given to the ehurcli to pronounce definitely as to the mode by which, and the time in which, the Creator chose to work. Respectfully submitted, S. L. Morris, J. W. Greene. The substitute was indefinitely postponed, and the re- port was adopted, and is as follows : Overtures No. 17 and 18. From the Presbyteries of Harmony and South Carolina, touching the acts of the last Assembly on evolution, and the power of the General Assembly over theological seminaries and their instructors. A^iswer — Touching the subject matter referred to in these over- tures, this Assembly declines to formulate any detailed explanation of the acts of the last Assembly, as any such statement, however ex- pressed, could only be regarded as a new deliverance on the same subjects, which this Assembly does not feel called upon to make. Dr. Woodrow appeared before the Assembly at Balti- more in 1888, and his complaint was issued. Dr. William Adams appeared as respondent for the Synod of Georgia. Four hours' time was allowed to each. Judge Heiskell, a member of the Assembly, acted as Dr. Woodrow's counsel, and Dr. Strickler assisted Dr. Adams. The vote was taken : To sustain, 34 ; not to sustain, 109 ; to sustain in part, 2 ; excused from voting, 4 ; absent or not answer- ing, 5. The committee to whom it was referred to bring in a minute, expressing the Assembly's judgment in this case, reported a preamble, stating the facts of the case, with this conclusion following: Now, therefore, it is the judgment of this General Assembly, that Adam's body was directly fashioned by Almighty God, of the dust of the ground, without any natural animal parentage of any kind. The wisdom of God prompted him to reveal the fact, while the in- scrutable mode of his action therein he has not revealed. Therefore, the church does not propose to touch, handle or con- clude any question of science which belongs to God's kingdom of nature. She must, by her divine constitution, see that these ques- tions are not tlirust upon her to break the silence of scripture, and supplement it by any scientific hypothesis concerning the mode of God's being or acts in creating, which are inscrutable to us. It is therefore ordered that this complaint in this case be not sustained. 598 MV LIFE AND TIMES. and tlie judgment of the Synod of (Jeorgia be, and the same is hereby, in all things affirmed. Rev. T. C. Whaling, for himself and others, offered the following protest, which was admitted to record without answer : We, whose names are undersigned, desire to enter our solemn pro- test against the decision of this (reneral Assembly refusing to sus- tain the complaint of the Rev. James Woodrow, D. D., against the Synod of Georgia, for the following reasons: 1. The second specification in the indictment against the Rev. James Woodrow, D. D., is expressly excluded by the constitution of the church, inasmuch as nothing ought to be considered by any court as an otFence, or admitted as a matter of accusation, which cannot be proved to be such from scripture as interpreted in these stan- dards. 2. In view of your protestants, the holy Bible does not reveal the form of the matter out of which, the time in which, or the mode by which, God created the body of Adam, and therefore the hypothesis of evolution as believed by Rev. James Woodrow, D. D., cannot be regarded as in conflict with the teaching of the sacred scriptures. 3. The Westminster standards simply reproduce without inter- pretation the statements of the scriptures in reference to the creation of Adam's body; and, as the views of the complainant are not in conflict with the statements of the scriptures, so neither can they be with the teachings of the standards. 4. The action of the Assembly in refusing to sustain this com- plaint is equivalent to pronouncing as certainly false the theory of evolution as applied by Dr. Woodrow to Adam's body, which is a purely scientific question, entirely foreign to the legitimate sphere of ecclesiastical action. Your protestants, therefore, are unwilling that this General Assembly should express any opinion whatever respecting the hypothesis of evolution or any other scientific ques- tion. This General x\ssembl_v at Baltimore is the last one at which Dr. Woodrow appears, either as appellant or com- plainant, or as in any way directly concerned personally. Its decision in his case seems to have gratified both those opposed to and those defending him. As to the former, tliis appears from the action taken at Aiken by the Charleston Presbytery at its very next meeting, officially informing its ministers, elders and deacons of the de- cision made by the Assembly, and forbidding any public CONTKOVKKSIES OF SCIENCE. 5U9 contending against it. As to the latter, the same appears in the protest to the Assembly's decision by eighteen of its members, the chief reason of protest being that the Assembly's decision against Dr. Woodrow related only to a scientific theory, respecting which the Assembly, as such, had no right to give any decision, as they had not been able to prove it contrary to the scriptures. Inasmuch, however, as the decision of Augusta Pres- bytery, which the Synod of Georgia annulled, had been a verdict declaring that Dr. Woodrow's standing as a member of that presbytery was unira])eaehable, and inas- much as the Baltimore General Assembly refused, by a large majority, to sustain Dr. Woodrow's complaint against that Synod's annulment, there was room for the question, how far this highest court had impeached Dr. Woodrow's standing as a minister ? To this very question Dr. Woodrow himself called the attention of Augusta Presbytery. It promptly assembled in October, and unanimously declared him rectus in curia. Georgia Synod unanimously approved of presbytery's records on this subject. Moreover, the Augusta Presbytery elected Dr. Woodrow its Moderator, and also its representative commissioner at the ensuing Assembly of 1889, at Chat- tanooga. His seat in that Assembly was never challenged, but, on the contrary, he was recognized as a lawful nom- inee for the moderatorship, also was appointed and acted as chairman of one of its leading standing committees — the Committee of Publication. Moreover, the Chatta- nooga Assembly approved the records of the Georgia S}Tiod, which had endorsed Augusta Presbytery's judg- ment of Dr. Woodrow's soundness in faith and good standing. Now, respecting the verdict of the Baltimore Assembly, it appears from Dr. Flinn's printed speech that, while Dr. Woodrow's complaint was being heard, it was declared in eft'ect by the Moderator, by the respondents of Georgia Synod, and by Dr. Woodrow, unchallenged, that he (Dr. Woodrow) was not on trial, that his ecclesiastical stand- ing would not be affected by the Assembly's action. This declaration was officially emphasized by the Assembly's not giving instructions for a new trial, or for arraigning 600 MY I.IFE AND TIMES. Augusta Presbytery, and by declining to enjoin silence or the cessation of discussion on the subject of evolution. All this, of course, logically and legally meant, "Dr. Woodrow's views may be held consistently with good standing in the church" ; all which would seem to signify a declaration by the supreme court that Dr. Woodrow's views were consistent with sound doctrine and good stand- ing; for if the Assembly thought Dr. Woodrow held ''errors in doctrine injuriously affecting the church," ren- dering its "advice and instruction in conformity with the constitution" necessary in the premises, it would have ex- ercised its power thus to "bear testimony, and suppress schismatical contentions and disputations." (Form of Goveninient, Par. 90.) ]Srot doing these things was a declaration : "Dr. Woodrow holds no such errors, main- tains no such controversy ; hence no advice is necessary" ; for when courts are required to exercise certain acts of power on given contingencies, the not exercising of them is a declaration that the contingencies do not exist. Thus it was maintained by the friends of Dr. Woodrow that the Augusta Presbytery, the Georgia Synod, the Bal- timore Assembly, and the Chattanooga Assembly, and so the whole church, including even the Charleston Presby- tery, had declared that Dr. Woodrow was doctrinally and ecclesiastically sound, notwithstanding his evolution views. I must introduce here what could not possibly come in before the history of the Assembly at Baltimore, in the spring of 1888. The Synod of South Carolina. It met at Cheraw on October 20, 1886. At that meet- ing the board announced to the Synod the failure of all efforts hitherto to remove Dr. Woodrow in the following' terms: "At the first meeting of the board, held after the last meetings of the respective synods, the board recog- nized it as the result of their action, that Professor James Woodrow had not been legally removed from the Perkins chair, and he has, until this meeting of the board, held September 15, 1886, acted as such and discharged the duties of the chair." COI^TEOVEKSIES OF SCIENCE. 601 Rev. Dr. Girardeau presented a resolution, which, upon his own motion, was referred to the Committee on the Theological Seminary. Eev. D. S. McAllister, of the Committee on the Theo- logical Seminary, presented a report, in part, from a ma- jority of the committee, as follows : Your Committee on the Theological Seminary begs to submit the following partial report: We recommend that the Synod adopt the paper presented by Dr. Girardeau, "That this Synod, being deeply sensible of its responsi- bility for the administration of the high and solemn trust reposed in its hands in connection with the Theological Seminary, and deeming it important to the future welfare and efficiency of that in- stitution that Dr. Woodrow should withdraw from relation to it, hereby requests him to signify to the Synod, at once, his willing- ness to tender to the Board of Directors, at an early day, his resig- nation of the Perkins chair;" and that this action be telegraphed, by special committee, at once, to Dr. Woodrow, requesting an im- mediate answer. D. S. McAllister, A. A. James, J. A. Enslow. Rev. J. S. White, in behalf of a minority of the com- mittee, proposed the following amendment to the above report of the majority : It is understood that this resolution is based simply upon the present deplorable condition of the Seminary, without naming any parties responsible for it; and, further, upon what seems to be necessary for the future welfare of that institution; and it has no connection, so far as this request is concerned, with any charges or any action heretofore taken by our church courts in reference to the Perkins Professor. J. S. White, J. D. Harrison. The amendment being put, was lost by a vote of twenty- seven to ninety. The committee appointed to telegraph Dr. Woodrow, reported the following telegram just delivered, which was received as information : I have just received your telegram. Under existing circumstances I respectfully decline complying with the Synod's request. James Woodrow. 602 MY LIFE AND TIMES. Ivcv. Dr. Girardeau moved the following resolution^ which was adopted by a vote of seventy-eight to forty-two : Whereas, tliis Synod adopted the following resolution: "Resolved, That this Synod, being deeply sensible of its responsi- bility for the administration of the high and solemn trust reposed in its hands in connection with the Theological Seminary, and deeming it important to the future welfare and efficiency of that in- stitution that Dr. Woodrow should withdraw from relation to it, hereby requests him to signify to the Synod at once his willingness to tender to the Board of Directors, at an early day, his resignation of the Perkins chair, and that this action be telegraphed by special committee, at once, to Dr. Woodrow, requesting immediate answer." And whereas, Dr. Woodrow has declined to comply with this re- quest of the Synod, therefore. Resolved, That the Synod of South Carolina, the other Synods concurring, does hereby instruct the Board of Directors to meet at as early a day as practicable after the meeting of the Synod of South Georgia and Florida, and renew the request to Dr. Woodrow for his resignation; and, if he shall decline to accede to that re- quest, the board are hereby ordered to declare the Perkins profes- sorship vacant, and make such provision for the department as may seem best. Resolved, That a committee of two from each of the Synods con- trolling the Seminary, the other Synods concurring, be appointed to revise the constitution of the Seminary, and report at the meetings of the Synods in 1887; the joint committee to meet at Atlanta, Ga., at a time agreed upon by its members, and to elect its own chair- man; the duty of convening the committee to be assigned to the person first named on the Georgia committee. Rev. Dr. Girardeau and Rev. George Sumniey were appointed the committee on behalf of this Synod to revise the constitution of the Seminary. The Synod of South Carolina,. 1887. It met at Darlington on 2Tth of November. The ma- jority of the Standing Committee on the Theological Seminary recommended the adoption by the Synod of this resolution, to-wit: Inasmuch as the board's action in removing the Rev. James Wood- row, D. D., from the Perkins chair, was in accordance with the order of the four controlling Synods, this Synod approves of and confirms that action. CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 603 The minority of said committee report for Synod's adoption this resolution, to-wit : That the board is hereby instructed, the other controlling Synods •concurring, to proceed at once to determine the question as to Dr. Woodrow's alleged incompetence or unfaithfulness by a full trial, as is provided in the constitution of the Seminary (Sec. 2, Art. 11). The minority report was rejected by eighty-five to sixty, and then the majority report adoj^ted without coimt. The select committee to revise the constitution reported to this Synod, but the consideration of the matter was postponed until next meeting of Synod. Synod of South Carolina^ 1888. It followed after the Assembly at Baltimore, and met at Greenwood, October 12tli. Rev. T. 0. Whaling, of the Committee on the Records of Charleston Presbytery, presented this report : Your Committee on the Records of the Presbytery of Charleston have examined said records, and recommend their approval, with the following exceptions : 1. On page 314 the records show that the presbytery adopted the following paper : "The Committee on Minutes of General Assembly call the atten- tion of the presbytery to the judicial case decided by the Assembly (see page 408), and recommend the adoption of the following reso- lution : "Presbytery hereby informs its ministers, ruling elders and dea- cons, that the General Assembly has judicially affirmed the de- cision of the Synod of Georgia declaring that the 'belief of . . . James Woodrow, D. D., as to the origin of the body of Adam was covtrary to the word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church;'' and, therefore, that this presbytery regards the holding of said form of evolution as 'contrary to the word of God as inter- preted in the standards of the church,' and forbids the public con- tending against the decision of the Assembly." Your conunittee recommend for the adoption of Synod the follow- ing resolutions : J. This Synod condemns this action as unconstitutional, irregular ;and unwise for the following reasons : First. This action is a trespass upon the sacred and inalienable C04 MY LIFE AND TIMES. right of private judgment, wliioh belongs to every court and all the officers and members of the church of Christ. Secondly. This action imposes a restraint upon the right of free- dom in the expression of opinion, which is unwarranted by the law. Thirdly. This action assumes the infallibility of the General As- sembly in the deliverance of judicial decisions, which is a doctrine foreign to the Constitution and spirit of Presbyterianism. II. This Synod directs the Presbytery of Charleston to convene as soon as practicable and review and correct these proceedings, which the Synod has now condemned. T. C. Whaling, R. M. Cooper. Rev. Dr. Thompson presented a protest against the action of Synod just taken, which, on motion, was ad- mitted to record, and the following committee was ap- pointed to bring in an answer : Rev. N. M. Woods, Rev. T. C. Whaling and Judge T. B. Fraser. It had been agreed to take the vote seriatim and ta record ayes and noes. The vote on the first exception was ninety-six ayes to fifty-eight noes. The vote for the rea- sons stood one hundred and four to forty-three. The vote on the second exception was eighty-five ayes to — . The paper as adopted Avas as above given. Rev. N. M. Woods presented, in behalf of the commit- tee, an answer to the protest of Rev. Dr. Thompson and others to the action of Synod on the records of Charleston Presbytery. The question being raised whether the answer to a pro- test is open to discussion by the body, the Moderator ruled that the answer is a matter before the court for its adoption as its answer, and that it is therefore open tO' discussion by all the members of the court, who are also entitled to vote on its adoption. On appeal from this. decision it was sustained by the house. The answer was adopted, and the protest and answer are as follows : Protest. The undersigned respectfully ask to be permitted to enter our pro- test against the action of the Synod upon the records of the Charles- ton Presbytery, for the following reasons: 1. The Synod's decision was reached upon the resolution passed by the presbytery, dissociated from its subsequent proceedings, ex- CONTROVEESIES OF SCIENCE. 605 planatory and defining tlie scope of that resolution — it is therefore a judgment upon a partial record, and is unjust. 2. It denies the right of a church court to enjoin obedience to the deliverances of superior courts upon its members in so far as public contention is concerned within constitutional limits. It thus an- nounces a principle revolutionary in its character, and subversive of ecclesiastical authority. 3. In ignoring the expository portion of the record, it virtually charges the presbytery with insincerity in its action, to put it in its mildest form. W. T. Thompson, F. Y. Legare, Jr., George Summey, F. Y. Legare, D. E. Frierson, J. T. B. Craig, R. H. Reid, E. p. Moore, P. A. Emanuel, C. W. Humphreys, T. P. Burgess, W. J. Cunningham, Jno. M. Rose, Jr., W. F. Pearson, W. G. Vardell, J. C. Caldwell, J. H. McMurray, W. B. Thompson, J. B. Mack, H. H. Wyman, J. L. Girardeau. Answer. Your committee, appointed to bring in an answer to the protest recorded against Synod's action in the matter of condemning the records of Charleston Presbytery, beg leave to offer the following for entry on the minutes of Synod: I. In reply to the first statement of the protestants, Synod an- swers that its judgment was reached only after liaving given full and careful consideration to all the various matters relating to said action of Charleston Presbytery. The interdict itself, the protest made against tliat interdict, the answer of presbytery to that pro- test, and the verbal explanations made by some of the authors or advocates of said interdict and answer on the floor of Synod, in re- gard to the real meaning and intent of the same, were all duly taken into account by the Synod. II. The language of the interdict which, as presbytery's records show (page 314), was "fully discussed," and a yea and nay vote taken and recorded thereon; and despite all this discussion of op- posing members, that language was left unaltered and unqualified. That interdict, in the plainest possible terms, lays a prohibition upon any and every form of public criticism of the General Assem- bly's deliverance at Baltimore, in the matter of the complaint of Rev. James Woodrow, D. D., against the Synod of Georgia. That interdict contains no hint that its object was to prevent only vio- C)OC :my ltfe am) ti.mks. lent, factious and abusive criticisms of said deliverance. Nor is; tliG sweeping severity of that interdict relieved by the very ambigu- ous and indefinite allusion to "a constitutional manner" of criticis- ing the said deliverance contained in said answer, especially when the verbal explanations, offered by some of the authors and advocates of said interdict before this Synod, plainly revealed the fact that their ideas of wliat is, and is not, a constitutional mode of public contending would prohibit even respectful criticisms of said deliv- ance made in the newspapers. The authors and defenders of said interdict did not see fit to limit or qualify their words so as plainly to confine the prohibition to unconstitutional, factious and abiisive contending, and Synod felt obliged to take the language of the inter- dict in its plain meaning and intent. III. The protestants utterly misconceive Synod's position in say- ing that it denies the right of our church courts to enjoin obedience to the injunctions of the superior courts. Synod did not condemn Charleston Presbytery for enjoining obedience to the deliverance of the Assembly, but for having made an injunction of its own, which the Assembly had not made, and which no court has any lawful right to make, under our Constitution. The Assembly did not at- tempt to limit free speech, but said presbytery did do this of its own accord. The Synod is unwilling to be regarded as favoring any- thing like disobedience to any lawful orders of any church courts. Obedience to the lawful deliverances of our various ecclesiastical tribunals is one of the plainest duties of every Christian. Had said presbytery simply forbidden an unconstitutional, factious and un- reasonable contending on the part of those under its jurisdiction, and there had been any present need for such a prohibition in said presbytery, this Synod would have promptly approved the same. IV. Synod disclaims any intention to charge insincerity upon said presbytery. The only charge implied in Synod's action was that the presbytery had exceeded its lawful jirerogatives, and had taken action which no court of our clnncli should tolerate for one moment.. Neander M. Woods, Thornton C. Whaling, T. B. Fraser. The Elwaxg Case. At this same meeting of the Synod the Standing Com- mittee on the Report of the Board of Directors of the Seminary were divided as majority and minority. The former, after presenting the ordinary snbjects of tlie board's report, went on to mention their having found in the hoard's minntos, also submitted to tlieni on the part ■CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 607 of the faculty, the formal expression of its will touching the case of Mr. Elwang, to the effect that "in view of the late action of a majority of the synods controlling this Seminary, and of what it conceives to be its consequent duty, Mr. Elwang should abstain from attending the lec- tures of Professor Woodrow. We also find it recorded in the minutes that the Board of Directors, at its meeting in May, "Resolved. That this board hereby approves the faculty's action in the case" of Mr. Elwang. 1. Touching this matter, your committee recommend to Synod the adoption of the following resolutions: Resolved. 1. That this Synod disapproves of the action of the fac- ulty in ordering Mr. W. W. Elwang to cease attending upon the lec- tures of the Rev. Prof. Woodrow in the South Carolina University; and also of the action of tlie Board of Directors in sustaining and confirming this interdict. 2. This Synod disavows the interpretation placed on its previous orders touching the Perkins Professor upon which the faculty and the board claim to base their late action. II. Your committee also recommend to the Synod the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That, in the present circumstances, this Synod will defer the consideration of the changes in the constitution of the Seminary which are proposed by the joint committee appointed by the associated Synods for its revision. The two resolutions contained in the first recommenda- tion of the majority report were adopted by a vote of seventy-three to forty-four, and the ayes and noes were recorded. Then the second recommendation was adopted. The following was the minority report : I dissent from the censure of the board and the faculty in tlie case of Mr. Elwang. The faculty were virtually authorized by the Pres- bytery of New Orleans to act in the case. We must assume that they acted conscientiously. Mr. Elwang's rights were not invaded, and no wrong was done to any one. Respectfully submitted. Synod of South Carolina^ 1889. It met at Spartanburg, October 25th, The Synod's committee on the minutes of the preceding Assembly at Chattanooga made the following report : 60S MY LIFE AND TIMP:S. Tliis committee finds on page 589 of the Assemlily's minutes that the Assembly "disapproved the action of the Synod of South Caro- lina, together with the reasons assigned therefor," in condemning Charleston Presbytery's order "forbidding the public contending against the decision of the Assembly" in the Woodrow case. But, inasmuch as Charleston Presbytery has declared in its records that it has already obeyed Synod's order to "review and correct its proceeding which Synod has condemned," we deem it unnecessary to do more than to reaffirm the doctrine that every minister, ruling elder, deacon and private member has tiie constitu- tional right to contend publicly, through the press or otherwise, against the decisions of all our courts from the lowest to the highest. The minority reported as follows : l^csolved, That the Synod expresses its acquiescence in the de- cision of the General Assembly and its entire satisfaction with its judgment, inasmuch as its action was not intended to limit eitlier the liberty or private judgment or the constitutional right of proper discussion. These reports Avere, on motion, both laid on the table, and also the following resolution : Resolved, That the minutes be received simply as information on the ground that the highest court of the church having spoken, the lower courts should acquiesce. This course is recommended not only as in accordance with law, but as conducive to the peace and har- mony of the church. The Committee on the Theological Seminary made a report in four sections, the whole of which was adopted. The second section of this report read as follows : 2. We find nothing in the minutes or report of the board which requires special action on the part of Synod, but we feel constrained to express the wish that a brighter and happier day may soon come for tliis beloved Seminary. A minority of this committee moved to amend this sec- tion by adding to it the following : When all of us can love and cherish and support it as we have done in the past, which we cannot do under existing circumstances. In this connection, and looking to this result, we reiterate the action of last Synod touching the prohibiting of students from attending the lectures of Dr. Woodrow, who is an authorized minister and of good standing in our church, and hereby call this matter to the at- tention of the board and the controlling Svnods. CONTKOVEKSIES OF SCIENCE. 609 This motion was laid on the table by a vote of seventy- seven to sixty-three. 3. The Synod of Georgia having officially notified us of the adop- tion of the Revised Constitution (with amendments) by that body, we recommend that this be received as information, and that a special committee be appointed to report on this subject at our next meeting. I come now to narrate the closing details of this evolu- tion controversy. 1. A Tkansfer from Augusta Presbytery. The Presbytery of Augusta met at Milledgeville, Ga., April 4, 1890, and Dr. Woodrow, at his own request, was ■dismissed to join the Charleston Presbytery. His letter of application to be thus dismissed is dated April 3d. The writer began with expressions of regret that the time had come which was to separate him from the brethren with whom he had been connected ever since the forma- tion of the Augusta Presbytery. By that presbytery he said he was licensed in 1859, and ordained in 1860. Within its bounds he had spent the early years of his ministry, preaching to vacant congregations and in des- titute communities where no Presbyterian preacher was ever heard before. He had also served as professor mean- while in Oglethorpe University, at Milledgeville. But Rule 277 of our Book of Church Order requires a church member or officer, when removing his residence into an- other church or presbytery, ,to transfer his ecclesiastical relations along with his residence, and there was no longer any reason why this rule should not apply to him. When the Synod of Georgia elected him a professor in the Seminary at Columbia, and sent him there, "I was not removed," said he, ''from your jurisdiction, since that field belonged to your presbytery and synod, as well as to all the others." This was the rule with all the different professors. An ambassador does not lose his citizenship by residing at the court to which he is sent. "When I ■ceased doing that work, I was engaged defending myself," said he, "from" charges affecting the scripturalness of my belief, with re2:ard to which vou had already vindicated 610 MY LIFE AND TIMKS. me; and whon, a year ago, yon sent me as your com- missioner to tlie General Assembly, I felt I was still free from the requirement [of rule 277 j nntil I had rendered an account to yon of my diligence, and had been approved. This was done at yonr last meeting. Bnt now there is nothing to justify my longer retaining my connection with yon while I live outside your bounds. I am doing no ecclesiastical work under your jurisdiction." It was true, he was still doing the work of a religions editor, every week for the past twenty-hve years sending forth The Southern Freshyterian to thousands of readers, and this with the expressed approbation of his presbytery and the Synod of Georgia ; bnt this was not by their ap- pointment, nor under their jurisdiction in the doing of it, except as he was under the general superintendence of the presbytery, which is over every minister respecting his conduct. Xow, however, he is honorably dismissed from Augusta Presbytery to become a member of Charles- ton Presbytery, within whose bounds he has lived for a quarter of a century. 2. Dk. Woodkow IX THE South Carolina College. In the Soufhern Presbyterian of May 15, 1S90, a])- pears the following article : The Seminary Boycott. At its meeting last week, tlie Board of Directors of the Columbia Tlieological Seminary adopted tlie following: "Inasmuoli as the statement has been circulated, that the Semi- nary has boycotted the chair of Professor Woodrow, of Geology and Mineralogy, in the State University, the Board of Directors feel called upon to make the following minute for the benefit of all con- cerned : "In 1887 a student applied to the faculty for permission to at- tend Dr. Woodrow"s course of lectures at the University. The cir- cumstances of the application were such that the faculty declined to grant it, and the board sustained the faculty. "The case was exceptional, and did not determine the i)olicy of the Seminary. "To guard against tlio ])()ssil)ili(y of su<-li misconstruction in the future the boaid hereby directs the faculty to refer all sucli appli- cants to the presbyteries under whose care they may be, and govern itself according to the written wishes of the presbyteries." controversies of science. 611 Editouial Remarks.* This paper will doubtless be read with interest, and also will ex- cite some curiosity. As far as it may be regarded as a receding from a wrong position, and an attempt to relieve the Seminary from the odium which the course of the faculty and the board had brought upon it, it will be received with satisfaction by lovers of the right. This feeling cannot be wholly prevented by the thought that the receding might have been more unambiguous and straightforward, and the statement of facts more accurate; for, however defective it may be in these respects, it seems at least to be intended as a step in the right direction. When wrong has been done, any tendency towards the right, however feebly and hesitating, is to be com- mended. An open, frank, manly confession of the wrong, and a strong effort to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, would cer- tainly be much more worthy of commendation; but let us not despise the feeble beginnings. The curiositj' alluded to begins to be excited by the first clause in the preamble, "Inasmuch as the statement has been circulated tliat the Seminary has boycotted the chair of Professor Woodrow." That statement has been made several times, beginning between two and three years ago, about the time when the fact occurred which is embodied in the statement — in 1887. It may naturally be asked how it happens that the directors only now at this late date feel called upon to explain it, or explain it away? * -;? -X- -X- -» * * -s ■* -» In its new enactment, it is to be observed that the board takes away from the faculty the right to give permission to any Seminary student to attend Professor VVoodrow's lectures, and forbids all such attendance, except when the presbytery concerned is applied to and gives its permission. The faculty are still free to give permission to students to attend other lectures in the University of South Carolina, but not Professor Woodrow's. So far as the board is concerned, these are still "boy- cotted"; and the only way to escape from this prohibition is by formal application to a presbytery and formal resolution granting permission from that body. On tlie 22d of May, 1800, appeared the following-: The Seminary Directors' Explanatory Minute. Last week we published the action of the Theological Seminary Board of Directors, depriving the faculty of the right to grant per- mission to students to attend Professor Woodrow's lectures in the * I am under the necessity of sometimes shortening these editorial remarks. 012 MY LIFE AND TIMES. University, and making it necessary for those who desire to do so to obtain beforcliand written permission from their presbyteries. We said that "tlie board's statement of the case may hardly be accepted as quite full or accurate," but did not then show wherein it was in- accurate. How very far it is from being correct we shall now de- monstrate. As we intimated last week, the board must have forgot- ten; otherwise it is inconceivable that they should have said what they did. Let us see. At the recent meeting, the board said: "In 1887 a student applied to the faculty for permission to attend Dr. Woodrow's course of lectures at the University. The circum- stances of the application were such that the faculty declined to grant it, and the board sustained the faculty. "The case was exceptional, and did not determine the policy of the Seminary." At its meeting in May, 1888, the board said: "Whereas, this board has heard a statement of facts from the faculty touching their action in regard to Messrs. W. W. Elwang and W. C. C. Foster attending the lectures of Professor James Wood- row in South Carolina University, therefore, "Resolved, 1. That this board hereby approve of the faculty's action in the cases of said students. "Resolved, 2. That the faculty's statement of facts be spread upon our records. "Resolved, 3. In view of the agitation in the church growing out of these cases, that our religious papers be requested to publish this statement." Compare these two statements; do they agree? The two points emphasized in the recent statement are that "a student" — a single student — was concerned, and that the "case" — single case — was exceptional, rendered so by the "circumstances of the application," and that it was solely because of these "circum- stances" "that the faculty declined to grant it." But in 1888 the board approved the action of the faculty in two cases, not in one alone — "their action in regard to Messrs. W. W. Elwang and W. C. C. Foster;" and in one of these there never had been any application attended by "circumstances" or otherwise! How could the board in 1890 be so forgetful in two years? Surely it ought to have refreshed the memory by reading the official records before venturing to make this statement. Bnt the next point is much more serious. The board says that "the circumstances of the application were such that the faculty declined to grant it, and the board sustained the faculty." If it had not been for these circumstances, the faculty would not have de- clined to grant it, nor would the board have approved, if the faculty CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 613 had done so. Let the correctness of this statement be tested by what the faculty told the board was the ground of their declining in the paper above referred to, which was published by the board's request {Southern Presbyterian, May 24, 1888) : "The following expository minute was adopted by the faculty soon after formal action was taken prohibiting Mr. Elwang's at- tendance upon Professor Woodrow's lectures: " '1. In taking this action the faculty was guided by the principle of obedience to constituted authority. It recognizes itself as ap- pointed by the Board of Directors and the controlling Synods for the discharge of solemn trusts confided by them to its hands, and as bound, so long as it freely remains in connection with the Sem- inary, to comply with the will of these authorities. These bodies have removed Professor Woodrow from relation to this institution, because of their unwillingness to have the influence of his teaching exerted upon its students. The purport of this action obviously was to separate the students from that influence. But were they per- mitted to attend his lectures, which might be expected to involve the topic in regard to which the board and the Synods have taken action, it would be virtually all one as if he were still occupying a chair in the Seminary. The only real difTerence would be as to the place of instruction. A few steps in space annihilated the dif- ference. " 'It is true that Professor Woodrow does not now teach under the sanction of the bodies governing the Seminary; but were the stu- dents of that institution formally allowed to put themselves under his instructions, the case would be practically the same as if he had that sanction. The faculty were therefore obliged by a sense of duty to fulfill the manifest intentions of the controlling authorities, by arresting the attendance of a Seminary student upon the lectures of Professor Woodrow. . . . So, a body of theological students is limited by its relation to the government under which it exists in the exercise of its freedom. It is one thing for a Seminary student to read in private the writings of Professor Woodrow, and quite anotlier to attend publicly and statedly upon his instructions. In the one case his liberty of free inquiry is unrestrained; in the other, it is restricted by the requirements of an authority to which he is bound to submit, as long as his voluntary subjection to it continues. In the present instance, this limiting influence upon free action operates in a two-fold manner; it binds both the students and the faculty of the Seminary to comply with the expressed will of the bodies by which the institution is governed. Neither class is at liberty to disobey lawful authority. If the yoke is intolerable, free- dom may be enjoyed by retirement from the institution.' (Minutes,, pp. 67-70.)" 614 MY LIFE AND TIMES. In view of tins "expository minute," how could the board say what it did two weeks ago about its action two years ago? Is not such forgetfulness well-nigh inexcusable? Why did it not take more pains to "be sure of its facts"? In 1888 the board approved the faculty's action, and, to make sure tliat the reasons of this approval should not be misunderstood, re- quested that the faculty's statement explaining its action and set- ting forth the grounds of it, should be published. In its "expository minute" the faculty says that, in its action "prohibiting Mr. El- wang's attendance upon Professor Woodrow's lectures," it "was guided by the principle of obedience to constituted authority" . . . and "bound" "to comply with the will of these authorities," namely, the board and the controlling Synods; that "these bodies have removed Professor Woodrow from relation to this institution because of their unwillingness to have the influence of his teaching exerted upon its students. The purport of this action obviously was to separate students" — not Mr. Elwang on account of "the circum- stances of his application" — but "to separate the students from that influence;" hence the prohibition of Mr. Elwang. The faculty fur- ther says, "The faculty were, therefore, obliged by a sense of duty to fulfill the manifest intentions of the controlling authorities, by ar- resting tiie attendance of a Seminary student upon the lectures of Prof. Woodrow." It says further that both the students and the faculty are bound "to comply with the expressed will of the bodies by which the institution is governed," and therefore it had taken its action. The principle is general, universal, in its application, says the faculty; and the board, in 1888, "approved." Now, the board says, "the case was exceptional, and did not determine the policy of the Seminary;" that the faculty had acted as it did on account of the "circumstances of the application." Could two statements be more directly contradictory? The faculty in 1888 adopted an "expository minute;" two weeks ago the board felt "called upon to make the following minute," which we have been examining; are not other explanatory minutes sadly needed? In view of the direct, palpable contradictions pointed out, what is the board, or rather the part of it concerned, going to do? It wishes to have the confidence of its constituents; confidence is not gained or retained by such contradictions. On June nth appears the following: article: The Rev. Dk. Thompson's Reply. To the Editor of the Southern Presbyterian: My attention has been called to your recent editorials touching a paper presented by myself at the last meeting of the Board of Directors of Columbia CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 615 Theological Seminary, and as you invite, 1 hope you will give place to the following reply: 1. The resolutions you quote had not been forgotten; I voted for their adoption, and with a knowledge of the reasons for and the meaning of them, I prepared the paper you have seen fit to criticise, and 1 reaffirm its accuracy as to fact. Did it ever occur to you that you might reason from wrong premises, or that your memory might be defective? Such a reflection should make you more guarded in your statements, and more temperate in your language. 2. That paper was presented with the sincere desire to relieve the long- vexed Seminary, as far as possible, of embarrassment, that witli- out hindrance it might pursue its God-given work of preparing young men for the gospel ministry. The board so understood it, and when it was passed, only one member declined to vote. It seems to me that, unless there are those who are bent upon agitation, we might now have peace. W. T. Thompson'. Charleston, S. C, May 29, 1800. Editorial Remarks. 1. In the first sentence of his first paragraph. Dr. Thompson shows that he cannot adopt the apology which we suggested — forgetful- ness : not a very good one, it is true, but yet the best we could think of, and, indeed, the only one that would relieve the board from the terrible predicament in which it has placed itself. He tells us he remembered the paper he voted for in 1888, and yet prepared the paper adopted in 1890! Most surprising of all, he "reaffirms its accuracy as to fact." We wish he had tried to set forth his reasons for believing in the accuracy of this reaffirmation. As we demon- strated two weeks ago, the two papers are utterly inconsistent with each other. Both cannot be correct. The last (1890) says that the application for permission to at- tend Dr. Woodrow's lectures at the University was declined because of "the circumstances of the application;" that "the case was ex- ceptional, and did not determine the policy of the Seminary." The first (1888) says that the faculty's declaration is approved which asserts that the "purport of the action" of the controlling Synods "obviously was to separate the students from that influ- ence"— the influence of Professor Woodrow's teaching; and that "the faculty were therefore obliged by a sense of duty to fulfill the manifest intention of the controlling authorities, by arresting the attendance of a Seminary student upon the lectures of Professor Woodrow." Yet, Dr. Thompson said in his paper, and now "reaffirms," that this act, performed in accordance with the principle of obedience to the controlling authorities — that all-embracing, universal principle — G16 MY LIFE AND TIMES. "was exceptional and did not determine the policy of the Seminary." How could he prepare that paper and '"reaffirm its accuracy as to facf? Nothing more can be needed to prove its entire, complete in-"accu- raey as to fact."' The language of the paper of 1888 is clear and needs no further interpretation. If it did, we find it in the inter- pretation given by a member of the Board of Directors in defending the board's action before the Synod of South Carolina in 1888. Contemporaneous construction by the parties immediately con- cerned is of the highest value. At tliat meeting the Hon. D. S. Hen- derson, of Aiken, one of the Board of Directors, said, as reported for the Columbia Register, "I esteem this the most important matter that has or will come before this Synod. It brings up the contest fairly and squarely, and it should be settled once for all. When we meet as Christian brethren, there should be no sides. The charge here made is that the faculty was wrong in forbidding students to attend the lectures of Dr. VVoodrow. In considering the charge, Synod should look at the surroundings. The board had been directed to remove Dr. Woodrow from the Seminary because he taught what was contrary to the word of God; and if it was improper for him to teach in the Seminary, it was improper for students to hear him elsewhere. It was not an effort to boycott Dr. Woodrow, but it would be mockery to prohibit it in the Seminary and allow the stu- dents to hear it elsewhere. The board felt it its duty to say that what should not be taught in the Seminary should not be listened to elsewhere." "The board felt it its duty to say that what should not be taught in the Seminary should not be listened to elsewhere." And yet Dr. Thompson, and the directors under his lead, now say that "the case was exceptional and did not determine the policy of the Seminary." How could they say that? Dr. Tliompson next asks us if it ever occurred to us that we miglit reason from wrong premises, or that our memory might be defective. Yes, very often. Hence we always exercise the utmost care to avoid the former. And knowing how defective our memory is, we take the utmost pains to be sure of our facts, as in this case, by carefully examining the documentary evidence bearing upon the matter. We have not in the least trusted to memory, as the readers of our articles see. Would that the board had been equally careful ! But if we have not been temperate, we are ready and anxious to confess our fault, as soon as it shall be pointed out to us by friend or foe. We try to make our meaning unmistakably clear, but wholly to avoid intemperate language. 2. We do not question the motive that actuated Dr. Tliompson and his fellow-directors. But, as we said in our first article, while the CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 617 "intention was no doubt good," "the judgment displayed in attempt- ing to carry it out, scarcely deserves equal praise." The desire was "to relieve the long-vexed Seminary, as far as possible, of embarrass- ment"— a praiseworthy desire, certainly. It has been "long-vexed" by those who now control it — for six years or more, ever since they began their assaults upon one of the professors, thereby causing two other professors to leave, and reducing the attendance of students, so that it was necessary to close the Seminary's doors. Part of the "vexing" later consisted in "determining the policy of the Sem- inary" "to separate students from the influence" of Professor Wood- row's teaching, not only in the Seminary, but in the University, or wherever else he might teach. Can the board now hope to relieve the Seminary from embarrassment by denying, in the face of the plainest facts, that such policy was established? Surely not. If the policy, as established in 1888, was right, adhere unflinch- ingly to it. If it was wrong, hasten to say so in clear, unmistakable terms, and abrogate it. There is no other fair, square, manly. Chris- tian way. Has the board done either? No, it has not. If, as asserted in 1888, the controlling authorities required students to be separated from the influence of Professor Woodrow's teaching, the board has now disobeyed these authorities in making it possible for Seminary students to come under that influence by obtaining written permis- sion from their presbyteries. If the controlling authorities did not require this, the board has now required it, by its new rule that the faculty may not give permission, that the students may not listen to this University professor, unless they have written permission from their presbyteries. Does the board, after reflection, really think this is a good way to "relieve tlie long-vexed Seminary of embarrass- ment" ? Respecting Dr. Thompson's last sentence, we must say a few words. We have no desire for agitation. During all these weary years, we have constantly stood on the defensive, seeking to ward off and repel assaults upon what we thought and think to be right and true. So, in this instance — the subject has not been introduced by us. Notwithstanding the continued resting of the ban of the "controlling authorities" upon Professor Woodrow, we have for a long time been silent; content to suff'er in silence, if indeed that is suffering which is accompanied by the consciousness before God of being in the right — that it is the result of an honest defence of his truth. Now, this action of the board came to us for publication; if we had published its allusion to Dr. Woodrow without comment, we would reasonably have been regarded as acquiescing in its accu- racy, hence we were forced to point out its inaccuracies and its general character — not for the sake of agitation, but for the sake 01 S MY I-IFJ-: AXD TIMES. of tlic truth. If agitation has been renewed, the board, and not we, must be lield responsible for it. Since Dr. Thompson's reply must appear so wholly unsatisfactory to all who examine the facts, will the other directors who voted for the papers of 1888 and 1890 permit the matter to stand as it now is? The following a])peared on Jmic 12, 1S90: The Rev. Dr. Tiioaipson's Secoxd Reply. To the Editor of the Southern Presbyterian: I am sure the sub- joined remarks will evince, to all unprejudiced minds, the entire accuracy of the paper recently adopted by the Board of Directors of the Columbia Seminary. 1. The names of Messrs. Elwang and Foster appear in the resolu- tions of 1888 passed by the board, and upon this fact chieHy the discrepancy is made to hang. Mr. Foster had been attending Dr. Woodrow's lectures; he made no request to be permitted to continue to take them. He withdrew from the Seminary before the close of the term. The faculty took no action in his case, as it had learned only a short time before his leaving of his attendance upon the lectures; the board heard the statement, and approved the non-action. Mr. Elwang is the only student with whom the faculty had any dealing. The board, in its paper, so affirms, and the point thus made and insisted upon is abundantly confirmed by the faculty's minute quoted by yourself, which reads, "The following expository minute was adopted by the faculty soon after formal action was taken prohihiting Mr. Eiwang's attendance upon Professor Wood- row's lectures." Thus, it seems that but one person has ever made application, but one case has ever been before the faculty, and but one case has ever been prohibited. The resolution of 1888, and the position of the board in 1890, to this extent, then, are seen to be at one. 2. Mr. PJlwang's case was presented in such a way, and attended by such circumstances, as led the board to sustain the faculty's course. This I maintained in the Synod at Greenwood (see Southern Pres- byterian of October 18, 1888), where I am reported as saying, "The faculty were driven to this action, and had no alternative. The cir- cumstances and reasons therefor should be considered, and not the naked fact." That "circumstances'' there were, and that these must have been "exceptional," appears from an editorial in the Southern Presby- terian of February 23, 1888, which tells us that, pending the Elwang CONTROVEESIES OF SCIENCE. 610 <;ase, "the student from Alabama (Mr. L'oster) was attending the lectures in question, and he was forbidden neither by the faculty formally, nor by the faculty informally, nor by Dr. Girardeau, or other member of the faculty, nor even by a son-in-law. And he con- tinued to attend until he left the Seminary 'in good standing.' " Thus again, it is shown that there was but one case, and that it must have been exceptional. Those circumstances need not be re- hearsed, and, for the sake of peace, they are not revived. Since, then, there never was but one case, and it was dealt with in view of its specific features, how can it be claimed, with any show of reason or of justice, that it determined the Seminary's policy in regard to Dr. Woodrow's chair in the State -University ? The position of the board in 1890, therefore, stands to this extent, that "the case was exceptional, and did not determine the policy of the Seminary." 3. You concede the pacific intention of the board in adopting that paper, indeed, the purpose of that paper is evident upon its face, it wears no disguise — it is transparent through and through — and 1 feel certain that the dispassionate judgment of your readers will cordially commend it, and will deprecate, not a calm statement of what you and your correspondents may conceive to be the facts, for the sake of truth, but the spirit in which you and they employ them, and the harsh insinuations in some instances connected with them, as savoring of unwarranted and hurtful agitation. I Avould suggest to one of your contributors, who delivers a homily upon what is "honorable." "that he has impeached his own character as a" teacher upon this subject, when he writes, as he does, of Chris- tian brethren and withholds his name. W. T. Thompson. Editorial Remarks. We are glad that Dr. Tliompson has at length seen the necessity he Avas under of at least making an efl'ort to relieve himself and the Board of Directors from the painful position into which he has led them. A very little reflection must have convinced him that a mere reaffirmation would not answer the purpose. The fact that he has signally failed to accomplish his object should not deprive him of the credit he deserves for having made the eflfort. 1. Dr. Thompson says that the "discrepancy is made to hang" "chiefly" upon the fact that "the names of Messrs. Elwang and Fos- ter appear in the resolutions of 1888 passed by the board. ' Oh! no, not "chiefly:" for, after we had proved the discrepancy by placing' the action in 1888 and 1890 side by side, we proceeded to say, "But the next point is much more serious," and then showed wherein it was so. It is not necessary to repeat what we said in this first point (;\Iay 22d) : if it liad been. Dr. Tliompson has saved us the 620 MY LIFE AXD TIMES. trouble; for he implicitly admits, witli unmistakable plainness, that in 1888 "the policy of the Seminary" was to prevent attendance on Dr. Woodrow's lectures, by telling us that "the faculty took no action in his [Mr. Foster's] case, as it had learned only a short time before his leaving of his attendance upon the lectures." Thus Dr. Thompson tells us the policy had been determined, but in this case there was no need or opportunity of applying it. Dr. Thompson's further attempt to show that "the case was ex- ceptional, and did not determine the policy of the Seminary," be- cause "Mr. Elwang is the only student" to whom the policy was ap- plied, is equivalent to an attempt to prove that the sentencing of a single murderer to death does not determine the policy of the State to punish murder with deatli, but shows that the case is "excep- tional." But it is useless to argue this point, since the faculty has told us why it prohibited in the so-called "exceptional" case. "The faculty unanimously adopted" as the "formal expression of its will touching his [Mr. Elwang's] case" the following resolution: "Resolved, That, in view of the late action of a majority* of the Synods controlling this Seminary, and of what it conceives to be its consequent duty in the administration of the disciplinary govern- ment of the institution, the faculty hereby expresses its judgment that Mr. Elwang should abstain from attending the lectures of Pro- fessor Woodrow." (Minutes, p. G3.) This action the board, in 1888, made its own. It lays down the "policy" as "determined" and applies it; and yet Dr. Thompson now insists that because it was applied to only one person, "the case was exceptional, and did not determine the policy of the Seminary." Further, the faculty and board in 1888 said that the action wa» taken "in view of the late action of a majority of the Synods con- trolling this Seminai-y," and now Dr. Thompson and the board say the action was taken because of "the circumstances of the applica- tion"! And still further, Dr. Thompson says above, "The resolu- tions of 1888, and the position of the board in 1890, to this extent^ then, are seen to be at one"! 2. Nearly all of what Dr. Thompson says under the second head has already been examined. But he was right, in 1888, when he said, "The faculty were driven to this action, and had no alterna- tive." As the faculty stated, it felt itself driven to the action by the "principle of obedience to constituted authority"; it was "bound to comply with the will of these authorities"; "the faculty were, therefore, obliged by a sense of duty to fulfill the manifest inten- tions of the controlling authorities, by arresting the attendance of a Seminary student upou the lectures of Professor Woodrow." Yes, * The Svnod of South Georgia and Florida had not then met. CONTEOVEESIES OF SCIEIS'CE. 621 the faculty were "driven," as Dr. Thompson says; but "driven" by a wholly different motive power from that which he now alleges. Surely nothing more is needed under this head to show how utterly untenable is the position now taken by Dr. Thompson and the board. 3. All that is said of "pacific intention,'" "spirit," "harsh insinua- tions," "hurtful agitation," etc., is aside from the questions at issue. It is to no purpose when contradictory statements are made and the contradiction is proved, to say, "We meant well; our intention •was pacific; don't expose our inconsistency, for that would be 'hurt- ful agitation,' and you would be showing a bad spirit." And, there- fore, we do not care to reply to Dr. Thompson's remarks under the third head. If he and those acting with him deprecate agitation, why did they renew it? We have shown beyond question that the policy of prohibition was •determined in 1888 as completely as anything could be. But if it had not been, the board under Dr. Thompson's lead has now deter- mined it. Suppose some misguided student should hereafter desire to attend the dangerous lectures — as two of the present students informed us eight months ago they did desire to do — would he be allowed to attend? He could attend the lectures of other Univer- «ity professors; but dare he attend Professor Woodrow's? No, says the board ; not even the Seminary faculty may give permission to do so ; "the board hereby directs the faculty to refer all such applicants to the presbyteries under whose care they may be, and govern itself according to the written wishes of the presbyteries." If the student is not under the care of a presbytery, there is no way by which he can obtain a dispensation to do the disapproved thing. If he is under such care, then he must apply to his presbytery, which meets twice a year, and await its written permission. The student must be terribly in earnest who will attempt to overcome such barriers ; and the danger must be terribly great against which the board would guard him by interposing such barriers. The followino' a})])e;iro(l on Jinio 11>, 1890: The Rev. Dr. Thompson's Third Reply. To the Editor of the Soutltern Presbyterian: From some cause your paper did not reach me until late on Saturday, and I avail my- self of this the earliest possible moment on Monday morning to return an answer. Had I known my harmless paper, intended and adopted as an irenicon, would have precipitated upon the church the numerous articles to which it has given rise, I would have hesitated about presenting it. The discussion has not been without benefit, however, for others, it appears, have shared your misapprehensions G22 :\rY ltfe axd Tnri:s, as to what has been done l)y the board in tlie past touching the so-called "boycott," and will have, it is to be hoped, a better un- derstanding and kindlier judgment of a body of public servants v.ho have tried to meet their grave responsibilities in the fear of (iod. To begin then, this much has been made certain to those who had received a different impression, that but one case has ever been before the faculty, respecting attendance upon Professor Woodrow's lectures. It remains to be shown, that '"circumstances"' in that case, that single case, had to do with the decision of the board in sustain- ing the action taken by the faculty therein. By this time it has been seen that my memory is excellent, and that my statements have not been wanting in "documentary evi- dence;"' let me say that I write with the entire history of the case before me, in the otiicial records of the faculty. The case is simply this: Mr. Elwang, of New Orleans Presbytery, had been at- tending Dr. Woodrow's lectures. He informed one of the professors that he had, upon grounds of expediency, concluded to abstain from further attendance upon them ; in this decision the members of the faculty concurred without taking formal action as a faculty. Soon after, a letter was received by the faculty from the Corres- pondent of Education of the New Orleans Presbytery, stating, "I have instructed Mr. Elwang to resume immediately, if he so desires, his attendance upon the lectures in question in the South Carolina University''; also a letter from ^Ir. P^lwang announcing his purpose "to resume attendance upon Dr. Woodrow's lectures," with the avowed design of forcing upon the faculty the "square issue" of its- formal approval or disapproval. In this emergency the faculty referred the case to the presbytery, soliciting an "expression of its judgment in regard to it," concluding^ its communication thus, "While we have no disposition to lay an in- terdict upon the free inquiries of students in any sphere of investi- gation, we are impelled by a sense of duty to raise the question be- fore the presbytery, as in our opinion possessed of the right to direct the education of its candidates, whether restrictions are not legiti- mate in this peculiar and exceptional instance."' A pro re nata meeting of the presbytery was called, and the fol- lowing resolutions were adopted in reply: "1. We sustain the administration of the Seminary in the matter referred to us, and enjoin upon our candidate to respect its authority. "2. Presbytery disclaims any responsibility for the instructions given by our Correspondent of Education. They were given without the knowledge or consent of this body, and entirely fail to indicate the views or wishes of presbytery." CONTKOVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 623 Mr. Ehvaiig again insisted upon a formal expression of the faculty's "will in the premises." Upon this the faculty passed a resolution expressing "its judg- ment that Mr. Ehvang should abstain from attending the lectures of Professor Woodrow." Xow, with this record in its hands, in the light of these "circum- stances," namely, that Mr. Ehvang and the Correspondent of Edu- cation forced the issue; that the faculty, notwithstanding its con- victions, was not eager to act; that the New Orleans Presbytery, whose "right it is to direct the education of its candidate," was asked "if restrictions in this instance are not legitimate"; that the presbyteiy said in substance, "Yes, the instructions of our Corres- pondent of Education do not indicate our wishes" ; that Mr. Ehvang still insisted upon a formal expression of the faculty's will — I say it was in view of these "circumstances" that the board approved of the faculty's inhibition. The board did have the faculty's "expository minute" spread upon its records, but did not necessarily adopt its course of reasoning. In church courts, at times, papers are engrossed without approval or disapproval. Could not the board act upon the facts above stated entirely apart from tlie argument operating with the faculty? And could it not, in view of those facts, full}' endorse the restriction put upon Mr. Ehvang without endorsing that argument ? Is it not evident, then, that Mr. Elwang's case was exceptional? I disclaim the charge of renewing agitation. When a peace measure is offered, as shown by the fact that the board as now constituted adopted it, but one member declining to vote, he who attacks it is responsible for the agitation that may ensue. W. T. Thompson. Editorial Remarks. The third reply of the Eev. Dr. W. T. Thompson increases the amazement that was excited by his resolution adopted by the board, and that has been growing steadily at each of his vain attempts to defend that "harmless paper." In spite of repeated demonstrations of its absolute incorrectness in every essential particular, he sticks to it. In spite of the plainest facts, he complacently holds to his assumptions, and seems even to hope that he may be able to per- suade others to believe likewise in the reality of his fairy tale. He sees probable benefit in the discussion, as he finds that our "misap- prehensions, as to what has been done by the board in the past touching the so-called 'boycott,' " are shared in by others. This is true, except that our opinions on this point are not misapprehen- sions, and we doubt whether any one except Dr. Thompson would venture so stoutly to contradict well-known historical facts. 024: MY LIFE AND TIMES. Be it remembered that Dr. Thompson is tryinj; to prove that the "policy of the Seminary" has not been determined in the past as to students attending Professor Woodrow's lectures in the South Caro- lina Tniversity: that, in short, the "boycott" has had no existence! Tlie audacity of the attempt is astounding, and to refute it by hibored aroument is as useless as to try to prove the existence of the sun shining in the heavens. But we must examine the remarkable argument of Dr. Thompson. His points are ( 1 ) that "but one ease has ever been before the fac- ulty respecting attendance upon Professor Woodrow's lectures;"' and (2) that "'circumstances' in that single case had to do with the decision of the board in sustaining the action taken by the faculty therein." (1) His first point is entirely incorrect. This is amply shown by the following quotations from the Statement of the Faculty to the Board, published May 24, 1888: "During the first part of this session of the Seminary, the fac- ultj' did not suppose that, in view of the action of the bodies con- trolling the institution, any of the students would attend Professor Woodrow's lectures. It appears that during that time a few of them did attend those lectures. "The Rev. Mr. Blackburn, a former student of the Seminary, and pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church in this city, having heard that some of the students were attending Professor Woodrow's lec- tures, had interviews with all who were doing so, except Mr. Foster. and endeavored to convince them of the inexpediency of that course. They acceded to the representations made by him and ceased to attend. "This communication left the faculty no option. Some definite action was necessitated. They decided to refer Mr. Elwang's case to his presbytery. "At the same time the faculty decided lo inquire of Mr. Foster whetlier lie were attending Professor Woodrow's lectures, and, if such should prove to be the fact, to refer his case to the Presbytery of South Alabama, on the ground that no discrimination could be inade between the two cases. Professor Girardeau, in accordance with the faculty's request, had an interview with Mr. Foster, im- mediately after the determination to refer Mr. Elwang's case to the Presbytery of New Orleans, and inquired of him whether he were attending Professor Woodrow's lectures. His answer was in the affirmative. He was then informed that, as he was in circumstances similar to those of Mr. Elwang, the faculty intended to refer his case to his presbytery. . . . He was told that, as he was about to leave the "institution, it was not at all likely that the faculty would refer his case to his presbytery. The professor reported these CONTKOVEESIES OF SCIENCE, 625 facts to the faculty, and they determined to di'op Mr. Foster's case." Its incorrectness is further shown by the words of the board in their action in 1888, as follows: "Whereas, this board has heard a statement of facts from the faculty touching their action in regard to Messrs. W. VV. Elwang and W. C. C. Foster attending' the lectures of Professor James ^^'ood- row in South Carolina University, therefore, "Resolved, 1. That this board hereby approve of the faculty's action in the cases of said students. "Resolved, 2. That the faculty's statement of facts be spread upon our records. "Resolved, 3. In view of the agitation in the church growing out of these cases, that our religious papers be requested to publish this statement." It is clear, furthermore, that Mr. Elwang's "single case" was a test case. It settled the "policy of the Seminary" as positively as a policy could be settled. It was so regarded by all concerned, and by the church at large. This is further evidenced by the history of the past session. Last fall two Seminary students desired to attend Professor Woodrow's University lectures, one of them having form- ally obtained his permission to do so. But they were frightened off. They could not stand the pressure brought to bear upon them in consequence of the notorious "policy of the Seminary." The moral backbone necessary to resist its influence was more than could be expected of these young men. And who could greatly blame their prudence? Why should they expose themselves to the vindictive- ness of those high in authority? They had doubtless heard of min- isters being made to suffer for just such refractoriness, and why should they subject themselves in the outset of their career to the poisoned shafts that have been hurled at others? (2) Dr. Thompson's second point is not only incorrect, but, even if it were true, it does not touch the question. The declaration of his resolution is that a student applied to the faculty, and "the circumstances of the application were such that the faculty de- clined to grant it, and the board sustained the faculty." This he supports by laboriously trying to show that " 'circumstances' in that case had to do with the action of the board in sustaining the fac- ulty." A gross ignoratio elenchi! For he declared that the faculty had acted on account of certain circumstances, and, when this is shown by the faculty's own words to be incorrect, he blandly pro- ceeds to show that the board acted on these circumstances, repudi- ating the faculty altogether ! But passing this, his position is utterly untenable. In his argument he repudiates the reasoning of the faculty upon 626 MY LIFE A]N"D TIMES. which it based the entire "boycott." The most startling thing in this third reply of Dr. Thompson, perhaps, is this cool repudiation, in behalf of the board, of the faculty's carefully prepared "exposi- tory minute." Really, this is too unkind! To such straits has Dr. Tliompson been driven in the vain attempt to show that the state- ments made in the recent action of the board are true. The facts are against him, and hence he calmly repudiates the statement of the faculty in order to remove the inconsistency! We very much fear Dr. Thompson is getting deeper and deeper in the mire. He is now, if possible, more hopelessly involved than ever. For, with the documentary evidence before one, it is impossible to consider this late repudiation of the faculty's statements as anything else than an afterthought now made to bolster up an indefensible position. What is this evidence? The faculty made a long and full "statement" to the board in regard to the "boycott," giving its history at length, and closing with an "expository minute" in explanation and defence of their course. The board thereupon "Resolved, 1. That this board hereby approve of the faculty's action in the cases of said students. 2, That the faculty's statement of facts be spread upon our records. 3. In view of the agitation in the church growing out of these cases, that our religious papers be reqviested to publish this statement." Can any one believe that at that time the board did not approve of the faculty's reasons, as Dr. Thompson would now have us be- lieve? Tlie board not only spread the faculty's statement on its own records, but expressly requested all our religious papers to publish it. Tlie board thereby endorsed that statement. No disapproval was then expressed, none was felt, and it is worse than idle to say now that the action of the faculty may have been sustained on grounds other than those assigned by the faculty. When this is done by a superior court, it is always expressly so stated in the opinion of the court. But suppose that the Board did repudiate tlic faculty's reasoning — and that this has been most carefully concealed all these years, (lining all the debates on the "boycott" in the Synods and else- where— then the board had no ground to stand upon. True, Dr. Thompson gives an array of "circumstances" in view of which he says "the board approved of the faculty's inhibition." These "cir- cumstances" amount to this, that the faculty were not eager to act according to their convictions, but were forced to do so, and the Presbytery of New Orleans told them that, in its opinion, "restric- tions in this instance are legitimate"! Was there ever a frailer basis assigned by a friend for the deliberate action of a board? As to the closing paragrapli, wo cannot believe that the board carefully and fully considered its action in adopting this "peace- CONTROVKKSIES OF SCIEISTCE. 627 measure." We cannot believe that it expresses the convictions of all the members. We must believe that it was pushed through hur- riedly and without sufficient examination of its true character, under the whip and spur of the majority. We cannot even believe that that majority would endorse Dr. Thompson's strange defence of his resolution. Reviewing all the facts, there remains the painful conviction that this recent act of the board is a pitiful attempt to "crawfish" out of a false position, without confession of wrong-doing. In the avowed interests of peace, liistory is perverted. The fact of the existence of the "boycott" has been notorious — it has been openly and boldly attacked, and as openly and boldly defended, in pres- byteries, synods, and the public press. And now the board, under Dr. Thompson's leadership, says it is all a "misconstruction" — there has been no "boycott" at all ! Students have not been forbidden to attend these University lectures! There was only one single case, peculiar to itself! And in defending this inconceivably strange position, Dr. Thompson repudiates for the board the careful reason- ing of the faculty on which alone tlie "boycott" can be logically de- fended. Surely, it is a pitiable spectacle. The faculty has been sorely wounded in the house of its friends. How much better would it have been for the board to have squarely annulled this "boycott," which has been rightfully de- nounced as infamous, rather than to seek vainly to escape the odium it has brought upon its instigators, by denying its existence in the face of the knowledge of the world to the contrary ! The following appeared on the 26tli of June, 1890 : The Rev. Dr. Thompson's Fourth Reply. To the Editor of the Hoiitlicrn Presbyterian: In my correspon- dence so far, I have not employed one intemperate word, nor a single phrase that could be called discourteous; on the contrary, I have calmly dealt with facts, which have demonstrated conclusively that but one case has ever been before the faculty, and that the "circum- stances" of that case, as I stated at the Greenwood Synod, led the board to approve of the action of the faculty. Various expressions in your last editorial show that your feelings have betrayed you into such an entire forgetfulness of what is be- coming in a discussion between gentlemen, as to forfeit your right to further notice from myself, even had there been any need to answer an article, which, to every one who has read the correspon- dence, must have answered itself. W. T. Thompson. June 21, 1890. C2S MY LIFE AND TIMES, Editorial Remarks. It sometimes happens, during a discussion, that the statements made by one party are without foundation, that his reasoning is unsound and illogical, and that his conclusions, therefore, are wholly wrong. When this state of things has been clearly pointed out, the unfortunate disputant is at a loss to know what to do; he can no longer maintain his indefensible position except by disproved reitera- tions: he does not like to confess his errors; the only thing that seems to be left is to become angry, and to abuse whoever may have pointed out his mistakes. This appears now to be Dr. Thompson's unhappy plight. We are not going to praise him on account of his personal abuse; but we wish to state the palliating circumstances attending his conduct, and to beg that he be not too severely con- demned for it. His mistakes as to fact and the unwisdom of the course which he led the board to adopt having been so plainly set forth, it was natural that he should be irritated. But. of course, we are not to be understood as saying that he should not have exercised self-restraint. This fourth reply has no right to a place in our columns, but we publish it as showing the best that he can do in the straits into which he is driven. We do not intend to answer his personalities in this reply any more than we have done in those in which he in- dulged in his previous replies. From the first he has charged those opposed to his views with intemperate language, and with being ■"bent upon agitation," "unwarranted and hui'tful agitation," with objectionable "spirit," etc.; but no progress towards the truth can be made by discussing these charges ; and as the truth alone is what we seek, we decline discussing them. Meanwhile the utterance of the Seminary Board of Directors stands, setting forth more or less distinctly, among other things: 1. That there never was any "boycott" against Professor Wood- row's University lectures; that it is all a mistake to think there was. 2. Tliat one student was forbidden to attend these lectures, and that the directors never intended to approve of anything more. If the faculty did, why, so much the worse for the faculty; and its views (after approval by the board in 1888), are now cruelly repu- diated by the leader of the board. 3. That, the board having denied tlie previous existence of the "boj'cott," it now institutes it, and ordains that the only escape from its operation is through written ])ermission from presby- teries— the faculty being entirely slri])ped of all authority in tlie matter. 4. That, as explained by tlie author of tlie paper, all this has been done in the interests of "peace" — as an "irenicon." CONTKOVEKSIES OF SCIEISTCB. 629 If this is to promote "peace," we wonder what would have been done if the intention had been to provoke war! A Card. Mr. Editor: The statement has been twice made in your paper to the effect that the recent action of the Board of Directors of Col- umbia Theological Seminary respecting the '"boycott" was unani- mously adopted, except that one member declined to vote. The un- dersigned is no doubt the member referred to as declining to vote. Such a representation does not do me full justice. Twice or three times before the vote was taken I tried to show that the paper pro- posed was objectionable, and would not accomplish the end in view. I asked that it be not hurriedly pressed to a vote, but that time be allowed for reflection and for conference. INIy desire was to have it laid over until the next day. It was a complete surprise to some of us — we expected no such "olive-branch" • — we were not prepared for it, and so I insisted that time be allowed for conference. Another member of the board proposed privately to the author of the paper that it be referred to a special committee. But others thought differently, and soon the vote was taken and the paper adopted. When it became evident that the paper would be adopted, it then occurred to me, that perhaps the next best thing to do would be, without farther opposition, to let those most interested in the paper make their own explanation of their own former action. And so I voted neither for nor against it. But upon farther reflection, I became convinced that I had made a mistake — that I would be counted as approving of the action, and as voting for it. Therefore, the next day, before a full meeting of the board, I stated again some of my objections to the paper adopted, and said distinctly that I did not wish to be regarded as either approving or voting for it. The very object which I had in view in thus again referring to the matter was that I might be known and counted, not merely as declining to vote, but as being decidedly opposed to the action, and as voting against it. Inas- much as a yea and nay vote was not taken, I did not consider it necessary to have my vote recorded. But had such a vote been taken, I would most certainly have asked to be recorded in the negative. I am sorry that I failed to make myself fully understood. If the English language can ever be interpreted with any degree of confidence as to its true meaning, it seems to me beyond the pos- siliility of a doubt that the action of the faculty and of tlie board of 1888 did determine the policy of the Seminary; and I fail utterly to see how it was not so intended. Twice or three times, I urged that it was wrong to refer the matter to the presbyteries. If ().30 MY LIFE AND TIMES. the "boycott" was riglit, the board ought to have insisted on its continuance. If it was wrong, the board ought to have removed it. If it never existed, the board certainly made a great mistake in not assuring the controlling Synods of the fact long, long ago. It would have saved a great deal of time, and a great deal of hard feeling. It is hard to conceive why information so important was withheld for two years. If the "boycott" has never existed as is now alleged — if Mr. El Wang's case was exceptional, and was so meant — where is either the sense or propriety of taking tlie matter up after two years, and referring the cases of all other students, who may desire to attend said lectures, to their respective presbyteries? It is vir- tually saying to them, "You never have been prohibited; but, inas- much as some thick-headed ministers and elders have thought that you were, and have circulated erroneous statements to that eflfeet, therefore, we, the Board of Directors, sitting in solemn assembly, do enact that henceforth not one of you shall attend without a written permit from your respective presbyteries. Hitherto you have been at perfect liberty to do as you were pleased about the matter, but henceforth you must have a written permit." Is it not evident that there is inconsistency somewhere? W. W. Mills. The following, from a well-known and much-honored minister of the South Carolina Synod, lately deceased, shall close my history of this hoycott : The conclusion we have reached is that the board not only has not removed the boycott, but has reaffirmed it. We are sorry the board did not wipe out this cause of dissatisfaction and irritation, for it is certain that until this is fairly and squarely done, the Seminary will not regain its former place in the affections of our people. Newbcrri/, 8. C, May 21, 1890. J. S. Cozby. 3. Rejected by Cilvrleston Presbytery. In the Southern Preshyter'tan of October 16, 1890, a])- pears the following paragraph : Charleston Presbytery. Charleston Presbytery met at Allendale last week. During the meeting, it considered the letter of the Presbytery of Augusta, dis- missing the Rev. Dr. Woodrow to Charleston Presbytery. The "ex- amination" on experimental religion, theology, and church govern- ment, consisted of a series of statements and questions read by the Rev. Dr. Webb, which he said he had been, six months ago, requested by a number of his fellow-presbyters to prepare. A large number COXTROVERSIIOS OF SCIENCE. 631 of the questions were objected to by tlie Eev. Professor Flinn, but in every instance the Moderator promptly decided that they were con- stitutional and proper. At the close of this "examination," Dr. Webb presented a paper setting forth the decision of the presbytery. The body did not v^en- ture to subject this paper to the light of discussion, but required that it be voted on at once, in accordance with a resolution offered by the Rev. Dr. Thompson. The following' is taken from the C^iarleston News and Courier of October 11, 1890: The usual examination, to which applicants are subjected, fol- lowed the presentation of Dr. Woodrow's letter. This was conducted wholly in writing, and much time was devoted to a calm, deliberate inquisition as to the applicant's doctrinal beliefs, etc. Dr. Woodrow was present, and conducted his own side of the case with his well- known ability and vigor. The following aeconnt is from the Southern Preshy- ierian of October 23, 1890: Dr. Woodrow's Examixatiox. Questions by the Rev. R. A. Webb, D. D. Experimental Religion. Q. Will you state to the presbytery the evidence of conversion which satisfies your own mind? A. The evidence is my conviction that I have accepted the terms on which salvation is offered in the sacred Scriptures, viz., that I believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and have repented of sin. Q. State to the presbytery the evidence of growth in grace which comforts you most. A. My chief and highest comfort is that I am conscious of growth in love to Jesus Christ my Saviour. Q. It is currently reported that your life is almost wholly secular- ized; that you are the proprietor of a job printing office, professor in the South Carolina University, president of the Central National Bank of Columbia, president of the Home Insurance Company, direc- tor in the C, N. & L. R. R. Co., vice-president of the Columbia Land and Investment Company, vice-president of a Building and Loan Association, director of the Piedmont Land and Improvement Com- pany, director of the Congaree Lumber or Furniture Company, pres- ident of the Carolina Loan and Investment Company. How do you reconcile this state of things with your ministerial vows and voca- tion? A. The enumeration is in the main correct. I am professor in the University of South Carolina, president of the Central Bank of G32 MY LIFE AND Ti:^rES. Columbia, president of the Soutli Caroliiui Home Insurance Com- pany, president of the Carolina Loan and Investment Company, vice-president of the Congaree Lumber and Furniture Company, vice-president of a Building and Loan Company, vice-pi'esident of the Columbia Land and Improvement Company, director in the C, N. & L. R. R. Co. I am also director in the C, C. & A. R. R. Co.; I am also a director of the Columbia Phosphate Company; I am not a director of the Piedmont Land and Improvement Company, nor am I the proprietor of a job printing office. But I am editor of the Southern Presbyterian. I reconcile this state of things with my ministerial vows and vocation by the fact that I am making full l^roof of my ministry by disseminating the gospel for the edification of the church through the press : that I am debarred from preaching in the many pulpits to which I am constantly invited by the con- dition of my tliroat, under the advice of a physician; and from teaching in a theological seminary by the action of the Synod of South Carolina and three other Synods. I give no time to secular employment until I have done all in my power to disseminate the gospel through the Southern Preshyterian. Q. How is it that the condition of your tliroat does not prevent your lecturing in the L'niversity, while it prevents you almost wholly from preaching in the pulpits of our churches? A. Without considering how far the members of this presbytery need to be in- formed on the subject, I answer that lecturing on scientific subjects to twenty-five or thirty-five students in a small room, requires only a conversational tone, while all know that such an amount of voice is not at all adequate in preaching. Q. In the Southern Presbyterian, November 8, 1888, you three times publish tliis presbytery as the "Charleston Inquisition," once as the "Venerable Inquisition," and its decisions as "Papal Pronuncia- mentos." In the issue of November 29, 1888, you publish an article under the title of "More Work for the Inquisition"; the "Venerable Inquisition," and its decisions as papal pronunciamentos, "Inquisi- torial Imprecations." In the issue of December 20, 1888, you pub- lish tlie following language, "I am almost afraid to read the news for fear I shall see the startling head-lines: A. R. K. Burned by order of His Holiness the Pope, in the Holy City, at Columbia, Seat of the Papal Dominions, and Rendezvous of His Minions." And again this presbytery is called "the venerable Inquisition." Will you disavow these offensive epithets? A. I do not remember the aboA'e quotations from the Southern Presbyterian in their connec- tion, so that I can neither reiterate nor disavow them. But I may add that, so far as anything that I have ever published in the Southern Presbyterian is concerned, I am prepared to show before any tribunal where I may be charged with having committed an CONTROVERSIES OF SCIENCE. 633 oifence in such publication, that such publication was right and proper, and not an oflence. But, of course, this cannot be done where there is no opportunity of showing the exact meaning of the quotations by pointing out their connection with other parts of the articles in which they appear, and their relation to current events. Q. In an editorial, June G, 1889, you published this language, "We have a supreme contempt for such popish orders as the interdict. . . . Our feeling is reinforced by an honest indignation that a presbytery of our church should be so misled as to attempt such an iniquity. . . . We are not to be turned from this path by the rumbling thunder of any petty inquisition." In an editorial, Octo- ber 11, 1888, you say, "This is not the first time that authority has been unlawfully assumed in attempts to Idi'd it over God's heritage; but we shall be greatly surprised if it is not found that the senti- ment still burns brightly in every true Presbyterian breast, 'Re- sistance to tyrants is obedience to God.' " In an editorial, March 21, 1889, you characterize a resolution of this oody as the "presby- tery's horrible decree." Will you retract this offensive language? A. Without considering whether or not I am now called upon to defend what was done more than a year ago, I give the same answer to this question as to the last. Q. In 1888, when the Synod of South Carolina met at Greenwood, it directed this presbytery to meet and correct a certain minute. In commenting upon this correction, you say in an editorial, March 21, 1889, "Whether this action of the presbytery constitutes obedience to Synod, and whether the members of presbytery sincerely believe that it does, are questions we do not propose to discuss. No doubt the Synod will consider the first next fall. The consciences of the members of presbytery who voted for the two resolutions in a court of the Lord .Jesus Christ — 1, That we will obey; 2, That we regard what we are doing as obedience to what we sincerely believe to be the meaning of Synod's order — the consciences of these members are deciding, or will hereafter decide, this second question in the sight of the Lord of the conscience." In an editorial of April 25, 1889, in commenting upon a report of the proceedings of this presbytery published in the Charleston World, which this body had declared "incorrect, partial and misleading," you say, "In view of the recent history of Charleston Presbytery, a very strong reason for believing in the correctness of the World's report, to many minds, might be found in the fact that the presbytery adopted a resolution condemn- ing it." Will you retract these reflections upon this presbytery's sincerity and veracity? A. 1 give to this question the same answer as to the last. Q. In 1888, at its regular meeting at Aiken, S. C, this presbytery spread the following upon its minutes, "Presbytery hereby informs 634 MY LIFE AND TIMES, its ministers, ruling elders, and deacons, that the General Assembly has judicially affirmed the decision of the Synod of Georgia, declar- ing that 'The belief of . . . James Woodrow, D. D., as to the origin of the body of Adam, was contrary to the word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church; and that, therefore, this presbytery regards the holding of said form of evolution as con- trary to the word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church, and forbids the public contending against the decision of of the Assembly." Under an order of the Synod, the presbytery in- serted into this resolution the words, "except in a constitutional manner." The General Assembly at Chattanooga in 1889, by a vote of 104 to 36, sustained this action. Will you submit to this resolution and obey the same? A. If this question means, will I obey any resolution forbidding the doing of anything whatever ex- cept in a constitutional manner, I unhesitatingly say that I will never in the future do anything except in a constitutional manner. as I have always endeavored not to do in the past. Q. Why have you so strenuously contended against this resolution, and so severely criticised this presbytery for its passage? A. I do not remember that I have objected to the resolution when proper emphasis has been laid on the clause, "Except in a constitutional manner." My criticism of the resolution in other respects I am ready to explain and defend whenever suitable opportunity is given. The columns of the Southern Presbi/tcrian will show fully my reasons. Q. In an editorial, June G, 1889, after the meeting of the Assembly at Chattanooga, concerning this presbytery, you used the following language, "But many of whose acts, by the rest of mankind, in- cluding ourselves, are regarded with very mixed feelings, in which neither respect nor admiration is specially prominent." Are there any of the acts of this body devoid of your respect, and regarded by you as here described? A. I cannot recall all the acts of this presbytery with sufficient definiteness to enable me to answer this question. But if the presbytery's acts are repeated to me, I will, if the presbytery desire, give my opinion of each as far as possible. Q. After the meeting of the General Assembly at Chattanooga, after the words, "Except in a constitutional manner," had been in- troduced into the resolution characterized by you as the "Aiken interdict," commenting upon that very resolution, June 6, 1889. you use this language, "We are not to be turned from this path by the rumbling thunder of any petty inquisition, more especially when one of the fundamental principles of the Presbyterian faith— liberty in the Lord — is attempted to be destroyed. We will not, dare not, hold our peace." Do you adhere to this purpose concerning this resolution? A. The language quoted above can have no reference to CONTKOVEESIES OF SCIENCE. 635 the whole resolution, including the added exception; as, with the exception, the resolution restrains no rightful liberty. With regard to any attempt to restrain the liberty rightly enjoyed by one of the Lord's freemen, I adhere, with all my heart, to the purpose ex- pressed in my words as quoted. Theology. Q. Do you hold the Confession of Faith in the same sense now that jou did when you subscribed it? A. I hold the Confession of Faith now in exactly the same sense that I did when I subscribed it, viz., as containing the system of doctrine set forth in the sacred Scrip- tures. Q. Is there any part of the Confession of Faith, any individual statement or doctrine of it, to which you except? If any, what? A. In the chapter on Creation (IV.) Par. I, I except to the statement that "it pleased God in the beginning to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein ... in the space of six days" — if this statement means that this world was made of nothing in six