Story of My Life 
 
 WILLIAM S. TURNER 
 
Columbia Stotoetsitp 
 
 mtyeCftptfiJrtogmrk 
 
 THE LIBRARIES 
 
 Bequest of 
 
 Frederic Bancroft 
 
 1860-1945 
 

t -, 
 
 '///<yv\ 
 
 
Story of My Life 
 
 BY 
 
 Rev. William S. Turner, A. M. 
 
 A Pioneer in Methodism in the States of California 
 and Washington 
 
 Written at Spokane, Washington, 1904 
 
 FOLLOWED BY AN 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Containing Characteristic Selections from His 
 Writings and Public Addresses 
 
 * 
 
 PniNTBE ^OR TI Tt 5 A.UTFOR FY 
 
 THE WESSKKN METHODIST BOOK CONCERN 
 
 CINCINNATI 
 

 TBS 
 
 f 
 
 3/31* 
 
/ dedicate this Volume to the Superannuate 
 Ministers, their Widows, and the Laity of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church who have known me 
 best in my life work. Affectionately, 
 
 W. S. T. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction. By Rev. Henry D. Kimball, D. D.. . 7 
 
 Parentage 11 
 
 Conversion 12 
 
 My Call to the Christian Ministry 13 
 
 My First Sermon 17 
 
 ► -Marriage and Western Pioneering 18 
 
 Death of My First Wife 20 
 
 Life in the Hawaiian Islands 21 
 
 Second Marriage 22 
 
 Educational Work 23 
 
 L^Ln the Saddle as Presiding Elder 24 
 
 Two Remarkable Conversions 30 
 
 Indian Reservations .' 36 
 
 Removal to Washington Territory 39 
 
 Darwinism 42 
 
 My Associates in Christian Work 44 
 
 With Sketches of — 
 
 Christian Shoup 44 
 
 President Edward Thomson, of Ohio Wesleyan 
 
 University 45 
 
 President Lucian W. Berry, of Indiana Asbury 
 
 University 46 
 
 Bishop William Taylor 47 
 
 Dr. Martin C. Briggs 47 
 
 President Edward Bannister, of University of the 
 
 Pacific 48 
 
 George Clifford 48 
 
 Hiram C. Tallman 48 
 
 John B. Hill 49 
 
 John W. Ross 50 
 
 5 
 
6 CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Milton S. Anderson 51 
 
 William J. White 51 
 
 John Uren 52 
 
 Samuel G. Havermale 53 
 
 Father Wilbur 53 
 
 Dr. Harvey K. Hines 53 
 
 Theodore Hoagland 53 
 
 Dr. Henry Brown 54 
 
 W. B. Carithers 54 
 
 John Le Cornu 54 
 
 David E. George 55 
 
 Father Waltz 55 
 
 Andrew J. Loomis 56 
 
 The Books that have Influenced and Impressed Me 57 
 
 Finis 57 
 
 Mrs. Susan Beecher Turner — A Memorial Sketch. . . 59 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 "Industry the Road to Success." Prize Essay, 1849 63 
 "Virtue the Guardian op Nations." Oration, 185 1 72 
 "The Mission op America." Independence Day Ora- 
 tion, 1852 83 
 
 "Moral Epport." Graduating Oration, 1852 98 
 
 Honolulu Sketches and Correspondence, 1856-7 101 
 
 "Relation op College to Practical Life." Address, 
 
 1861 114 
 
 "The Lost Light of Heathen Nations." Sermon. .131 
 "Introduction of Moral Evil." Lecture to Students 148 
 
 "Conscience." Lecture to Students 166 
 
 "Joseph in Egypt." Lecture 179 
 
 "The Supreme Deity op Christ." Essay 201 
 
 The Mistakes of Ingersoll 216 
 
 Lectures on Evolution 253 
 
 Women in the Legislative Councils of the 
 Church. A reply to Prof. James Strong, LL. D. . .309 
 
 Higher Criticism 318 
 
 Honolulu Sketches 338 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 BY HENRY D. KIMBALL, D. D., PASTOR OF VINCENT METHODIST 
 EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON. 
 
 In puttng forth this volume its author has yielded to 
 the insistent desire of many of his friends. It is now some 
 five years since he retired from the more active work of the 
 ministry; but that ministry in its unselfish devotion to the 
 service of mankind, in its entire and unchallenged loyalty 
 to revealed truth, in its loving, glad consecration to the 
 will of God at the cost of sacrifice and hardship, holds a 
 large place in the grateful memory of thousands who will 
 hail with delight the appearance of this volume. 
 
 It is, we think, to be regretted that some other pen than 
 his own has not given us the portraiture of his life, for 
 only so could it be true to that which men have seen of 
 him in the arena of conflict with evil, and which many 
 now see in the repose of a mission well-nigh accomplished. 
 His pen refuses to record the traits which give luster to 
 his life — the things long since recorded in the memory of 
 those who have known him best, and things now seen 
 in his attractive and beautiful age. 
 
 In the "Address of Welcome to the Orator of the 
 Philisonian Society" we see the style which marks the 
 man of seventy-eight years. It is interesting to trace the 
 identity of mental trend and habit through all the pro- 
 ductions of his pen from "The Prize Essay" to "The Story 
 of My Life." There is development, increase of power, 
 extension of outlook, but mental habitudes are the same. 
 Whether it be the young man of twenty-three or the vet- 
 eran of seventy-eight, his approach to his theme and his 
 method of handling it are identical. The average man 
 begins his literary life with a composite style which is 
 neither his own nor another's. He seeks the outlook and 
 
 7 
 
8 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 expression of the heroes of his studies and the masters of 
 his classroom, and attains neither, though there is a 
 strange commingling of the mental coloring of them all. 
 With change of masters and heroes his style changes. 
 Who has not been amused in looking over essays and ora- 
 tions, yellow with time and which won the applause of his 
 fellow-students, as he has traced the impress of Virgil in 
 one, of Homer in another, and of his favorite professor in 
 them all. The time came when he sought his own outlook 
 and tried to formulate his own conceptions in the language 
 of his own individuality. By this patient process he won 
 a style which was his own. But W. S. Turner's style 
 seems to have been his own from the beginning. 
 
 In "The Prize Essay" entitled "Industry the Road to 
 Success," written in his twenty-third year, may be seen 
 one of the secrets of his life's achievement. What must 
 have been the industry of the man — his constitution never 
 vigorous — who as student worked his own way through 
 college, and as presiding elder traversed vast districts, 
 yet so kept himself in touch with the classics and abreast 
 of scientific and philosophical thought that he was com- 
 petent, on call, to fill a professor's chair in the University 
 of the Pacific. Such industry awes us and rebukes the 
 folly of those who complain of the hardships to which the 
 Church of to-day calls its ministers. 
 
 Much of the history of California and of this Inland 
 Empire is interwoven with the life of this man of untiring 
 industry and self-sacrifice. In his travels as a minister he 
 knocked at the door of the pioneer, visited the camps of 
 miners and lumbermen, was the honored guest in homes 
 of refinement, was in touch with all classes over a vast 
 territory, impressing all by his unpretentious culture and 
 piety, and ministering to all by the breadth and sincerity 
 of his human sympathies and by the message of love which 
 he brought from the Heavenly Father. Who can gather 
 up the fruits of such a life, or fix limits to the influence so 
 widely cast and yet so direct and personal? As teacher 
 and president of seminary and college, who can know the 
 measure of his molding power upon the civilization of a 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 land to which wild adventurers and honest seekers for 
 wealth alike were flocking? Not till "the books" kept 
 by the Errorless One "shall be opened" can we know the 
 extent of this man's influence in shaping the civilization 
 of these vast regions. It is well that the story of this life 
 has been written, that its inspiration may reach the young 
 men who may toil in fields which this man redeemed from 
 sterility and seeded with truth. 
 
 In the hope that his declining sun may shine brightly 
 to its setting, and that its afterglow may blend with the 
 glory of the risen sun of his immortal life, we commend 
 his book to all lovers of Christian heroism. 
 
 HENRY D. KIMBALL. 
 
 Spokane, Washington, October ip, 1904. 
 
STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 I have been frequently requested by several of my per- 
 sonal friends to give some account of my life and work. 
 Now that I am on the superannuated list of ministers, and 
 have some leisure, I can hardly deny them this fraternal 
 request. 
 
 Permit me to say at the outset, that there is no renown 
 in this personal life, such as pertains to men of celebrity 
 in Church or State. It is unpretentious; only such as is 
 ordinary among Methodist ministers. It will only have 
 special interest to Methodist people, and only to those who 
 have known me in my social, religious, and ministerial life. 
 You see, then, how narrow and limited this life has been 
 in the breadth of its influence. But no life is unimportant 
 that has been sincere and true to God's purpose, however 
 limited. I therefore dedicate this brief biography to my 
 many friends in the Church and out of it, who may chance 
 to read it, with the prayer that my Heavenly Father's 
 blessing may go with it. 
 
 Parentage. 
 
 My father's name was William Turner, and my 
 mother's maiden name was Matilda Adams. I am one of 
 seventeen children — seven sons and ten daughters, my 
 father having been twice married. I was the seventh in 
 order of birth. Three sons by the first marriage became 
 Methodist ministers. My father was a local minister in 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church. He preached nearly as 
 often as the traveling preachers of his day, especially at 
 funerals. He was a tailor by trade, and was a Justice of 
 the Peace for many years, and died at the ripe age of 
 ninety years and twenty-one days. My birthplace was 
 Jersey Shore, in Central Pennsylvania, a place of no note. 
 
 ii 
 
12 STORY OF MY LIFB. 
 
 The date was May 28, 1826. I was converted at the age 
 of fourteen, and united with the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. The entire family became members of the 
 Church, except one boy, and became good and respectable 
 American citizens. This is a fairly good record for a 
 minister's family, who are supposed to turn out badly. 
 
 Conversion. 
 
 My conversion at the age of fourteen, as I said, was 
 in a sense peculiar enough to call for some notice. In the 
 early days of Methodism great emphasis was put on con- 
 version, but not greater than is clearly taught in the New 
 Testament; but I fear less emphasis is put on it to-day 
 than in Wesley's time in this great Church, I mean by most 
 Methodist ministers at present. Conviction then was gen- 
 erally clear, and often pungent. Such was mine. This 
 continued in my case for two years and a half, with but 
 few intervals of quiet from guilt and condemnation. In 
 these two years and six months I passed through four or 
 five seasons of gracious revivals, in which I took a deep 
 and serious interest without finding peace or rest. At the 
 close of the last revival mentioned, there were about one 
 hundred taken into the Church of my home town. I sat 
 in the congregation with a sad and burdened heart and 
 great discouragement. There was an elderly man, whom 
 I greatly admired as a Christian, who sat by my side. I 
 ventured to ask him if he thought it would be wrong for 
 me to go forward and join the Church with the throng 
 who were pressing into the kingdom. He replied that he 
 thought it would be well to do so. I went forward 
 with the rest, fully determined to seek till I found peace 
 for my troubled soul. That evening, in a prayer service 
 before the sermon, a glorious peace came into my soul, 
 and I broke out into a joyous laughter, without any bois- 
 terous shouting, as I had imagined I would have at my 
 deliverance from guilt and condemnation. I should have 
 been justified in shouting aloud, so great was the change, 
 "A new creature in Christ Jesus !" A passage from dark- 
 
CALL TO THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 13 
 
 ness into light. "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that 
 is within me bless His holy name !" This is the language 
 of a new-born soul. 
 
 I have often, since those two years and six months' 
 seeking, wondered why I did not enter into rest sooner. 
 Of one thing I am clearly conscious, that it has taught 
 me an important lesson; that had I backslidden I have 
 had a wholesome fear that I might never have been re- 
 claimed. Another thing I have been taught by this long 
 struggle is, that sin — deliberate sin — is an awful thing in 
 God's sight, and when repented of and forgiven it won- 
 derfully magnifies the goodness and mercy of God our 
 Heavenly Father ! 
 
 This leads me to speak of my early religious life from 
 my fourteenth to my twenty-fourth year. I was faithful 
 and conscientious in my attendance on the class-meetings, 
 the prayer-meetings, and the public services of the sanctu- 
 ary, and tremblingly took part in the social meetings. I 
 also tried to be faithful in reading the Bible and secret 
 prayer. I was taught to reverence the Sabbath by my 
 parents, both by precept and example. My father was 
 brought up a strict Presbyterian, but became a Methodist 
 soon after his marriage. I thank God for the Presbyterian 
 Church, and its indirect influence on my life through my 
 parents. 
 
 My Caliv to the Christian Ministry. 
 
 I believe firmly in a Divine call. I can not believe 
 otherwise, as I read the Old and New Testaments. The 
 success of Christianity depends largely on this Divine call. 
 If I was ever called of God to enter this work, it was 
 before my conversion as related above. I had early im- 
 pressions in childhood, as I now vividly remember them, 
 that I some day might be called into the ministry. The 
 first decided conviction occurred in my eighth year. My 
 father, after he became a Methodist, attended the camp- 
 meetings that were common in his day, taking his family 
 and tenting on the ground for a week or two at a time. 
 
14 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 At this particular camp-meeting, in my eighth year, the 
 following incident occurred. On a Saturday a young man 
 by the name of Coffee preached. I sat in what was known 
 as the altar, on a rude bench, my feet not touching the 
 ground. I recollect with great clearness the text, and the 
 deep solemnity with which he announced it ; namely, "Will 
 a man rob God?" (Malachi.) I said then and there to 
 myself, If God should ever call me to preach the gospel, 
 that will be the first text I will preach from. 
 
 After my conversion, I purposely emphasize that word, 
 my convictions took on more definite form and seriousness 
 touching my call to the ministry, without, however, my 
 ever opening my mind to any one about it. I really was 
 strongly inclined not to be communicative on that par- 
 ticular subject. I went to learn a trade in my fourteenth 
 year, soon after conversion, and left home to do so. I 
 observed the same fidelity in my Church duties as at home. 
 
 After learning my trade, I went West in my eighteenth 
 year. My class-leaders and pastors, under whose watchful 
 care I placed myself wherever I stopped for a longer or 
 shorter time, began to interview me on my proposed life 
 work, and put pertinent and direct questions to me as to 
 whether I felt called to preach. I usually put them off by 
 saying that my education was too limited to seriously think 
 of preaching with my educational equipment, without 
 directly admitting that some time I intended, if God opened 
 the way, to enter the ministry. This state of experience 
 in the various places I lived in, in Ohio and Indiana, con- 
 tinued to call me out on this question. I now, from 1844 
 to 1848, gave myself seriously to the task of preparation; 
 first, by going to school and working at my trade (tailor) 
 to earn means to attend better graded schools. 
 
 I attended the Wesleyan University at Delaware, Ohio, 
 in the year 1847, wlt ^ great profit and "batched." During 
 the long vacation I went down to Indiana to visit some 
 relatives at Rising Sun, and was induced to go to Asbury 
 University (now DePauw), where I remained four years 
 and completed the course in that school. These were years 
 of great self-denial and hard work. I lived on seventy- 
 
CALL TO THB CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 15 
 
 five cents a week, and worked at my trade on Saturdays 
 for two years of the four. Then I was given a few classes 
 to teach in the Preparatory Department of the college, 
 which, with great economy and hard work, enabled me to 
 pass to graduation in June, 1852. 
 
 It was while in Asbury University that I passed 
 through a severe conflict and struggle on the question of 
 my call to the ministry. This struggle culminated in the 
 year 1850. It was on this wise: I had been just as faith- 
 ful in my private and public religious duties as in the years 
 past; but some things occurred in my college life to throw 
 doubts on the genuineness of my Divine call to the Gospel 
 ministry. Some of my valued student friends believed 
 honestly that I was making a mistake in looking to the 
 ministry as my future calling, and were free to tell me so. 
 They said that I was mentally and otherwise fitted for the 
 profession of the law, and if* I entered the ministry I 
 never would reach my best. I, of course, listened to them 
 with some seriousness, because I knew that I had known 
 a few cases where I believed some had made this mistake, 
 and it was possible that I might be of that number. 
 
 I had at this time of doubt this occurrence to further 
 increase my perplexity. I was called upon by the literary 
 society, of which I was a member, to make a welcome 
 address on a public occasion to a former graduate of the 
 university. There was a very large audience present at 
 the time. In the audience was the judge of the District 
 Court and the president of the State Law School of Indi- 
 ana. At the conclusion of my address (as I afterward 
 learned), the president of the law school asked the judge 
 who I was, and what my future calling was to be. He 
 was informed that I was to enter the ministry. He replied 
 that I was making a mistake; that I was "cut out for the 
 law." At the conclusion of the address of the gentleman 
 who followed me, the president asked the judge what that 
 man's calling was, and was told he was a lawyer. Said the 
 president, "He ought to be a minister." This opinion of 
 the president of the law school came to me in an unex- 
 pected way, and greatly increased my doubt and perplexity. 
 
16 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 My only recourse as a Christian was to take the case to 
 God in prayer, and have it settled once for all. This I 
 did. Days and weeks the conflict raged. This is about the 
 way the discussion took place in my mind. How was I 
 to account for my childhood impressions, if God was not 
 speaking to me through my religious nature ? In my child- 
 hood plays with unsophisticated companions, when we 
 played Church, as children do, I was almost uniformly 
 chosen to be the preacher without my putting myself for- 
 ward. How was I to account for the almost continual 
 urging of this subject on my attention by class-leaders 
 and ministers, who could not know that I ever personally 
 had such thoughts, for they were strangers to me, who 
 was constantly changing locations. Add this, that I was 
 strongly inclined to conceal my own conscious convictions. 
 Again, these men could have no sinister motive to urge 
 this question upon me, a mere strippling, poor in worldly 
 goods and lacking in education. How came it that these 
 strangers should have convictions exactly answering to 
 my own, that had never been divulged to any mortal? 
 And then at times I found one side of "the natural man" 
 averse to the life of a Methodist minister, from a financial 
 point of view, as I then observed it. It meant sacrifice 
 and poverty then, as it does not always now. This was 
 also to be considered from a Christian standpoint. Were 
 my student friends, who were not all Christians, as com- 
 petent to give an unbiased opinion on such a subject as 
 ministers and godly men ? 
 
 But in this discussion with my doubts I felt called upon 
 to consider what was implied in entering a profession that 
 was more in harmony with my mental cast of mind, as 
 some of my friends and distinguished judges thought they 
 saw in me. Grant that there was promise of promotion, 
 wealth, political preferment, and all that, that there were 
 not in the ministerial calling. Were there not also greater 
 dangers and temptations, that most lawyers seem unable 
 to resist? There are many cases, from my point of view, 
 that I could not consent to take for my clients. These I 
 had to reckon with; so, in looking carefully and prayer- 
 
MY FIRST SERMON. 17 
 
 fully over the whole ground, I decided to be a mediocre 
 minister of the gospel, rather than a successful lawyer. All 
 this took place in the year 1850, in my third year in college. 
 
 My First Sermon. 
 
 Soon after I accepted license to preach, and was called 
 upon to use my license. This was a time of anxiety and 
 no little trepidation. But what was to be the text and 
 theme? Strange to tell, there came vividly to mind the 
 promise I had made to myself, when eight years old, if 
 God should ever call me to preach the Gospel it would be 
 the text that young Coffee used at that memorable (to me) 
 camp-meeting in Central Pennsylvania, "Will a man rob 
 God?" (Malachi.) I made as careful a preparation as 
 my spare time from my college studies permitted. As I 
 remember the plan of the sermon, it was this: 
 
 Introduction. — We can not rob God of His essential 
 attributes, but we may rob Him — 
 
 1. Of our moral influence; 
 
 2. Of the right use of our talents; 
 
 3. Of our reasonable services; and 
 
 4. In the misuse of our property. 
 
 There was a Methodist local preacher in the college 
 town who was curious to hear my first effort, and proposed 
 to take me to the country schoolhouse where I was to 
 preach. I accepted the offer. He sat behind me in what 
 served as a pulpit. When I reached the point of the mis- 
 use of property that God lodged in our hands as His 
 stewards I struck fire. I had collected some statistics on 
 the misuse of God's money on the single article of tobacco 
 in the United States. The amount was appalling. I not 
 only charged tobacco-users at large, but especially Church 
 members, with guilt in this misuse. I pronounced it down- 
 right robbery, and a flagrant sin and curse. I then paid 
 my respects to many ministers of the Gospel, who were 
 guilty of this robbery, in addition to the filth attending 
 it in many congregatons of that day. I had a jury and the 
 accused before me, and a judge on the bench, and before 
 I ended I had some conviction that I had missed my call- 
 2 
 
18 STORY OF MY LIFB. 
 
 ing, and that there was a lawyer in court that day. I 
 heard afterwards that several in the congregation were 
 of the opinion of the president of the law school, that I 
 had missed my calling. 
 
 After the congregation was dismissed, and the local 
 preacher and I repaired to the buggy to return to town, 
 he administered this rebuke to me : "Young man, the next 
 time you attempt to preach, preach the Gospel." I replied 
 that I thought I had. I was certain I had; but was sorry 
 that he had regarded the sermon as particularly personal 
 in this case, as the sequel proved. He had befouled the 
 stand with tobacco expectoration, while I was trying to 
 discourage the evil. There was silence on the journey 
 home between us, and I feared there was ill-feeling on his 
 part and sorrow on my part. In about two weeks from 
 that time he met me on the street, and extending his hand, 
 which I cordially met, he said: "Brother, I owe you an 
 apology for the manner- in which I criticised your 
 sermon. I want to tell you that I have quit the use of 
 tobacco, and thank you for the timely and forceful ser- 
 mon you preached that day." I congratulated him on his 
 success and accepted the apology. 
 
 At the close of that day's effort I had some fears that 
 I was not cut out for a preacher; but later I revised that 
 opinion somewhat, for in two or three months from that 
 time a gracious revival of religion occurred under my 
 labors at that same schoolhouse, when about forty persons 
 were converted, and, strange to say, two of the converts 
 became Christian lawyers. This greatly helped me in the 
 decision I had made, and prevented entire discouragement 
 at a critical time in my experience. I continued to preach 
 every Sunday during my college life at some place in the 
 country schoolhouses, with as much acceptability as is 
 common among beginners. 
 
 Marriage and Western Pioneering. 
 
 The next day after graduation, in 1852, I married 
 Miss Ann S. Cowgill, the daughter of one of the judges 
 heretofore mentioned, who called forth the opinion that 
 
MARRIAGE AND WESTERN PIONEERING, ig 
 
 I had made a mistake in choosing the calling of the Chris- 
 tian ministry. Soon after marriage I joined the Southeast 
 Indiana Conference, and was immediately transferred to 
 the California Mission. This was in September, 1852, 
 when we left for our life work on the Pacific Coast. 
 
 My first appointment in California was at Diamond 
 Springs, a mining town of two or three thousand peo- 
 ple in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Everything was 
 new and very primitive. Our first house was a mere 
 shell, made of stakes driven in the ground and clap- 
 boarded with "shakes." It consisted of two rooms, kitchen 
 and bedroom. For this we paid thirty-five dollars per 
 month. Flour was forty dollars per barrel, and other pro- 
 visions in proportion. We had a drygoods box for a table. 
 Mrs. Turner had a temporary stool for a seat, and I a 
 nail keg with a board for a cover. The rainy season soon 
 set in, and when the rains were heaviest we had to use an 
 umbrella at nights to keep the rain from our faces. But 
 the people were exceedingly kind, and we soon adjusted 
 ourselves to our new surroundings, and before the Con- 
 ference year closed we had built a church and parsonage. 
 Bishop Simpson, who was the second bishop who visited 
 California, dedicated our new church. He had known my 
 wife in her girlhood. It was a great treat to have him 
 with us and to hear him preach. I had the pleasure of 
 accompanying him to Coloma, where gold was first dis- 
 covered on the headwaters of the American River. 
 
 This year my labors were blessed with a revival, in 
 which some forty or more were converted, all men, for 
 women in California at that time were scarce and invalu- 
 able. Out of this revival there came four ministers of 
 the Gospel, and a Sunday-school superintendent from the 
 leading gambler of the town. Meetings were held in a 
 temporary schoolhouse that would not seat over seventy- 
 five people; but the house was crowded every night, and 
 many stood outside and filled the window spaces where 
 the sashes were removed. All this occurred in hot 
 weather. 
 
 The case of the gambler was peculiar enough to speak 
 
20 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 particularly of it. He came out of sheer curiosity. The 
 large gambling saloon, where hundreds gathered every 
 night, was near by. He seated himself near the door, 
 by the side of an associate. I had not spoken more than 
 ten minutes before he left the house. Soon he returned 
 and resumed his seat. In a few minutes he left again, 
 and soon returned. He left a third time, and returned. 
 I assumed that he did it to disturb the meeting. The next 
 night he was present. After the sermon, when an invita- 
 tion was given he was the first to come. He kneeled at 
 the bench. We were not certain what his motive was; 
 but he came, I think, for three nights as a seeker, and 
 was soundly converted. He told his experience, which 
 produced a profound sensation, and it gave a fresh im- 
 pulse to the revival. He said the first night of his attend- 
 ance that they remembered his leaving the house three 
 times and returning. He said that the Holy Spirit took 
 hold of him with such power that he felt impelled to go 
 out to a saloon near by and get a drink to drown his con- 
 victions, which he did three times that night. He united 
 with the Church and became an efficient superintendent 
 of the Sabbath-school. For eight years he was a power 
 for good in that community, as he had been for evil before 
 conversion. He was an educated man, and died in the 
 triumphs of the Christian faith, as I was afterwards in- 
 formed. The results of this meeting and the year's work 
 greatly encouraged me, and did much to settle the question 
 of my call to the Gospel ministry. 
 
 Death of My First Wife. 
 
 One of the severest trials of my life took place this 
 year; namely, the sudden and unexpected death of my 
 much endeared wife and efficient helper in my work. It 
 was a terrible blow, that well-nigh unmanned me and 
 seriously affected my health, besides leaving on my hands 
 a helpless babe, a month old, with no relatives within three 
 thousand miles to take care of him. But God put into the 
 heart of a kind woman (Mrs. Hitchcock), who acted as 
 mother to that dear boy (John C, now of Colfax, this 
 
LIFE IN HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 21 
 
 State). We laid her away in the little cemetery under 
 the pines of the Sierras to await the resurrection of the 
 just. The funeral services were very largely attended 
 and deeply impressive. The Rev. Frank Rawlins, who 
 had known her as a girl during his and my college days 
 at Old Asbury, conducted the services, using as the text, 
 "What we know not now, we shall know hereafter." This 
 was my comfort in that great sorrow and bereavement. 
 
 Ann Staunton Cowgill, my first wife, was the daughter 
 of Hon. John Cowgill, judge of the District Court of 
 Indiana. She was a woman of deep and intelligent piety, 
 and eminently fitted to fill her position as a Methodist 
 preacher's wife. I regarded myself greatly fortunate in 
 this union, as did the people in my .first charge in Cali- 
 fornia. My success in my first charge was due in no small 
 measure to her valuable help. I make this tender testi- 
 monial due to her memory who was my devoted and effi- 
 cient companion. Her death occurred June 1, 1853. 
 
 My second appointment in California was Santa Cruz, 
 on the seacoast. Here I remained two and one-half years 
 with impaired health, but in an unfavorable climate for 
 me. I did my usual amount of work. I was given a 
 vacation of three months, and went to the Hawaiian, or 
 as they were then called, the Sandwich Islands, with hope 
 of improvement, and found some help by this change. 
 
 Life in the Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 The next Conference decided to make Honolulu an ap- 
 pointment, and sent me to it. Here I remained three 
 years. I found seven members, Americans and English, 
 and organized a Methodist Church. The second year of 
 my pastorate here we built a church and parsonage, at a 
 cost of about six thousand dollars, and had a gracious re- 
 vival that increased the membership to about fifty. I 
 labored in this revival ninety successive days, preaching 
 every night and on Sabbaths twice, without any ministerial 
 help. It was to my surprise and that of my people, that 
 I seemed as fresh at the close as at the beginning, both as 
 to voice and bodily health. Every night there were only 
 
22 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 two or three seekers, which accounts for the long pro- 
 tracted effort. The loss of my companion, and the conse- 
 quent impairment of my health, resulted in a deeper re- 
 ligious consecration and growth in grace under the bless- 
 ings of God, I am glad to record. 
 
 During my pastorate here I received a letter from a 
 Christian lady in Iowa, that did me much good in settling 
 my doubts touching my call to the ministry. This letter 
 was wholly unexpected, and from a person I did not know 
 by her then present name. She introduced herself by ask- 
 ing if I remembered preaching frequently at the home of a 
 Mr. Caps, while attending college at Old Asbury, in Green- 
 castle, Indiana. She said: "I was then a small girl, about 
 eight or nine years old. Your earnest and pointed sermons 
 took hold of my childish heart, and became the means 
 under God of my conversion. I have followed your course 
 with great interest, and take this opportunity of expressing 
 my sincere gratitude for your kindly interest in preaching 
 in our neighborhood and in our house, and for its gracious 
 results on my own life and on others in that community." 
 I have learned from other sources that this woman was 
 at this time superintendent of the State public schools of 
 Iowa, and was prominent in Church and State for her 
 ability. I said on receiving this letter, "Thank God for 
 such a convert !" 
 
 The Lord knew how much I needed this word of com- 
 fort and encouragement, and sent it all the way from 
 Iowa to the Sandwich Islands. 
 
 Second Marriage. 
 
 Another event of supreme importance and value to me 
 while in these islands was my second marriage, during 
 a vacation from Honolulu, to Miss Susan E. Beecher, 
 at Stockton, California, after four years as a lonely wid- 
 ower. This union I regard as one of the greatest and 
 sweetest fortunes of my life. Her qualifications as wife 
 and helper in my work as pastor and teacher, of which ten 
 years were in the educational field, were all that could be 
 desired. She was a graduate of New York State Normal 
 
EDUCATIONAL WORK. 23 
 
 School, and was a born teacher. Of this union we have 
 had four children, two boys and two girls. My second 
 son, William B., was born at Honolulu. Our boy Charles 
 left us at an early age. The surviving children are a credit 
 and great comfort to us as good and intelligent citizens. 
 The recent death of Mrs. Turner has made a painful void 
 in my home. It never will be filled till our union in the 
 better and larger life. My Sandwich Islands experience 
 is among the most valuable of my life in some respects, 
 and I often run over it. During my residence there I made 
 a visit to the great volcano on the Island of Hawaii, the 
 largest of the group. This was in the year 1857. I also 
 ascended Mauna Kea, being fourteen thousand feet above 
 sea-level, and considered the highest mountain in the 
 Pacific Ocean, the account of which was published in The 
 National Magazine in 1857. An incident connected with 
 the published account here given, is that Mark Twain 
 appropriated a large part of said article in his celebrated 
 lecture on the Sandwich Islands, without giving due credit 
 for it; but I forgive him, inasmuch as he told his hearers 
 that the most remarkable fact was, "that these Islands 
 were entirely surrounded with water," the best original 
 hit of the lecture. 
 
 My associations with the old missionaries there were 
 cordial and pleasant. They showed me many kindnesses 
 and sympathy in my work while there, though of a differ- 
 ent faith. 
 
 Educational Work. 
 
 I returned to California in September, 1859, and was 
 appointed to Downieville, a mining town in the Sierra 
 Nevada Mountains. From this place I was called to a 
 professorship in the University of the Pacific, in Santa 
 Clara. Here I remained two years, and was called to the 
 principalship of the Napa Collegiate Institute, located at 
 Napa City. Here I remained six years, and resigned on 
 account of impaired health. 
 
 Ten years of my ministerial life have been spent in 
 the educational work of the Church. My most congenial 
 
24 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 work is the pastorate, yet my years spent in college work 
 have been valuable to me personally, and I hope to hun- 
 dreds of young men and women with whom I have come 
 in contact in the professor's chair in the University of the 
 Pacific and in the principalship of the Napa Collegiate 
 Institute in California. During these ten years I preached 
 almost every Sabbath once, and thus kept in touch with 
 my favorite calling — preaching. In frontier work, on 
 account of the importance of founding seminaries and col- 
 leges, Methodist preachers are necessarily called to teach, 
 as salaries are so small in struggling colleges that laymen 
 are not available. I was urged by my Conference to con- 
 sent to teach for these reasons, and I feared to refuse. I 
 gave two years to the University of the Pacific in English 
 Literature and Latin classes, and seven years as principal 
 of Napa Collegiate Institute, and a brief period as presi- 
 dent of Spokane College. I founded the Napa Collegiate 
 Institute, and personally owned the property. When 
 health failed me I presented the school to the California 
 Conference, rather than take a good price for it from 
 the Catholics, who were anxious to buy it of me. It was 
 finally consolidated with the University of the Pacific 
 after several years of considerable prosperity. During 
 these years of work in this Institute I have reason to be- 
 lieve a goodly number of students were converted. A 
 good Methodist school greatly fails of its purpose unless 
 it is blest with converts as well as scholars. I hold pre- 
 cious memories of these years, and feel the value of the 
 discipline they necessarily gave me. I can not, as I call 
 up this history, regret the providences that called me into 
 this work. God may know that it was better for me upon 
 the whole, and for the Church, than an uninterrupted pas- 
 torate would have been. I try now to so regard it. 
 
 In the Saddle as Presiding Elder. 
 
 My two next pastorates were at Fairfield and Peta- 
 luma. Part of one year I was laid aside from active work. 
 With improved health I was made Presiding Elder on 
 Petaluma District. During my four years' term (the term 
 
IN SADDLE, AS PRESIDING BLDUR. 25 
 
 was then four years) I missed only one appointment, and 
 that was on account of a swollen river. My district 
 reached from Sausalito, near San Francisco, to the Ore- 
 gon line, and included some twelve hundred miles of travel 
 each quarter, which was largely done on horseback. This 
 conduced greatly to bodily health. 
 
 On this district I had experiences both amusing and 
 serious. One of these was at an appointment at a place 
 called Lower Lake. A gentleman who posed as a skeptic, 
 and fond of debate, insisted upon my enjoying his hos- 
 pitality, and, as was supposed, to gratify his desire for a 
 theological discussion. I consented; but with a hint from 
 one who knew his love of debate, I determined not to be 
 drawn out. He made several attempts during the evening 
 to engage me; but I evaded and diverted his attention to 
 something else. In the morning at breakfast he renewed 
 the attack, but with no better results. While I was sad- 
 dling my animal to leave he said: "Mr. Turner, can you 
 inform me where the devil came from?" I replied that 
 I thought he came from "Arkansaw" (Arkansas), as he 
 had informed me that was his home State. I bade him 
 "good-bye," and never had a second invitation. I confess 
 that I felt a little mean to be under stress to thus treat 
 my host, but I was well convinced that his hospitality 
 was not generous or sincere, and let him know that I 
 felt so. 
 
 At another time I was overtaken by night, and put up 
 at a hotel in a place called Cloverdale. In the hotel office 
 I found a good fire in an old-fashioned fireplace. I 
 greatly enjoyed it, as the weather was wet and chilly. 
 Presently a man came in and sat down by me, and en- 
 gaged me in conversation. He thought he scented a 
 preacher in me, for which I was seldom taken, as my 
 dress was not particularly of the clerical order. He ven- 
 tured to inform me that he had decided views against the 
 Bible, and proceeded to air his opinions of it. I, of course, 
 allowed him to go on without any molestation. Finally I 
 suggested that, from his view of the Book that he had at- 
 tacked, it was an unreliable piece of history, and not of a 
 
26 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 very high order of morals. He replied that he certainly 
 thought so. I ventured to ask him his opinion of the 
 origin of man, and his authority for that opinion. I pro- 
 posed, inasmuch as he had proved to his entire satisfac- 
 tion that the Bible was utterly unreliable as a piece of 
 history, that we agree to shut it out of court respecting 
 the origin of man. To this he readily agreed. 
 
 "Where did you get that name? Your call yourself a 
 man. I deny it. I say you are a lineal descendant of the 
 jackass family. I say you are an improved monkey." 
 
 But he rejoined, "Does not the Bible call him man?" 
 
 "Yes, but you say it is unreliable as a piece of history, 
 and you agreed to shut it out as testimony in this partic- 
 ular discussion." 
 
 This narrowed the discussion, and soon ended it. I 
 had, however, to apologize to the gentleman (?) for what 
 I had said about our descent from the jackass and monkey, 
 because if the Bible was not true it was as hard on me as 
 on him. I was unwilling to rest under the imputation 
 that his view placed me under, and apologized for the 
 dilemma in which it placed both of us. We soon ad- 
 journed to supper, and have never met since. 
 
 I also had on this California District a very serious 
 and fearful experience one night. I had ridden my trusty 
 mare about forty miles that day through a sparsely-settled 
 country. I came into a little valley called "White Thorn." 
 There was one farm, and room for no more. The occupant 
 was a man called "Dutch Jake." He lived in a "shake" 
 cabin with only one room and lean-to, an apology for a 
 kitchen. Here I was to stay for the night. Presently two 
 rough-looking men entered, and seemed to make themselves 
 at home. I had arranged with the proprietor to stop with 
 him for the night. I surveyed the room to see where I was 
 to sleep. There were only three bunks in the hotel for 
 four of us, and this the only hotel within thirty-five miles. 
 The evening passed to me very unpleasantly, and was of 
 a nature to awaken in me apprehensions for my safety. 
 The conversation of the three was -well-seasoned with pro- 
 fanity and coarse vulgarity. Being tired by the day's 
 
IN SADDLE AS PRESIDING ELDER. 27 
 
 ride I asked permission to retire. There were two bunks, 
 one above the other, and one single and wider. I took 
 the lower of the two, as I did not care to sleep double. 
 The wider bunk was occupied by "Dutch Jake" and one of 
 the others. I tried to sleep, but utterly failed during the 
 entire night. A constant whispering was kept up by the 
 two men in the large bunk till two or three o'clock in the 
 morning. This greatly increased my apprehension. In 
 the morning at breakfast the man who did much of the 
 whispering during the night asked me where I was bound 
 for. I replied that I was going to Usol. He said he was 
 too. I did not want his company, but did not say so. I 
 felt then, more than ever, that there was mischief ahead. 
 I paid my bill, and went to the stable and saddled my mare. 
 The other man did the same. We started together and 
 soon reached the dense Redwood forest, where there was 
 only a narrow trail. For thirty-five miles there was noth- 
 ing but forest. But before entering the woods I alighted 
 from my horse, and pretended to tighten my saddle. This 
 I did to get him to enter before me. In this I was suc- 
 cessful. He soon began to interview me. He was well 
 armed with pistol and knives. He inquired my name and 
 business. I was glad of this. I told him I was a Methodist 
 preacher, and where I lived. 
 
 Said he, "We thought you were a large lumber mer- 
 chant from Humboldt or San Francisco." 
 
 I said: "In this you were greatly mistaken. In this 
 world's goods I am a poor man, but I am the child of 
 a King and an heir of heaven." 
 
 He looked surprised and disappointed. My time to 
 ask questions came to my help surprisingly. 
 
 "May I ask your name?" 
 
 "My name is Jimmy Smith." 
 
 "Well, Mr. Smith, I was much shocked and ashamed 
 of your coarse and vulgar talk last night with those men 
 where we staid. Of course, being a minister I could not 
 engage in it, as you must have observed. Mr. Smith, 
 where is your home ?" 
 
 "My people live in San Jose." 
 
28 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 "Do they know the life you are leading in this out-of- 
 the-way place?" 
 
 "No, they would be mortified and heart-broken did 
 they know how I am behaving." 
 
 "My dear sir, if you are engaged in any legitimate 
 business here, there is no good reason that you should let 
 yourself down to a base life." 
 
 He informed me that his parents were members of the 
 Episcopal Church. Having lived about San Jose and 
 Santa Clara for two or three years, and being connected 
 with the Methodist College there, I questioned him closely 
 till I satisfied myself that he told me the truth. He re- 
 membered my being connected with the college. I had 
 in my saddlebags a lunch that I had saved from the day 
 before, which I shared with him at noon near a mountain 
 stream. He became interested in me before the journey 
 ended, and when we. reached Usol we put up at the same 
 and only hotel. On my leaving he insisted on paying my 
 bill, which I declined at first, but which I finally assented 
 to on account of his great urgency. My being a Methodist 
 preacher saved me from robbery, and probably saved my 
 life. I am satisfied the plan was robbery. 
 
 In traveling over this trail frequently after this in my 
 official business, I learned that Smith had related what a 
 lecture I had administered to him and his comrades about 
 their vulgarity and profanity that night. Ever after as 
 I passed, "Dutch Jake" and others lifted their hats, all 
 growing out of this incident. So you see that I made no 
 serious mistake in choosing the calling of a Methodist 
 minister instead of the law, this time at least. 
 
 One other case I feel inclined to mention, as it seems 
 pertinent here, touching my call to the ministry. One day 
 while riding along I was overtaken by a man on horse- 
 back. He accosted me with a "Good-day, sir," which I 
 cordially returned. We rode together with slackened pace 
 for two or three miles, I should think. He seemed free 
 in talk, and also in questions as to my place and occu- 
 pation, to which I answered frankly. He questioned me 
 closely as to how much I received for my extensive travel 
 
IN SADDLE AS PRESIDING ELDER. 29 
 
 and preaching. I told him that I had no fixed or certain 
 salary. "Well, approximately how much do you get?" 
 I replied, that if I get for the balance of the year in pro- 
 portion to what I have already received, it would amount 
 to $900 or $1,000, my traveling expenses to come out of 
 it. "O," said he, "that don't pay." I replied: "From 
 your point of view I suppose not; but, my friend, I am 
 not in this business for the money there is in it. I could 
 engage in some other business where I might realize three 
 or four times as much." He said that he could not under- 
 stand it. I told him I was strongly inclined to believe him. 
 I do not think an unconverted man can understand it, 
 whose whole soul and energy are absorbed in money- 
 getting. I began to put some pertinent and direct ques- 
 tions to him concerning his religious obligation to God, 
 and soon found that he had no taste for the subject, and 
 put whip to his horse and bade me good-bye. Why should 
 the subject of religion be less interesting and unwelcome 
 than money-getting, unless men are estranged from God? 
 On my first round on the Petaluma District as Presid- 
 ing Elder I got lost, and lay out two nights in succession. 
 I was accompanied by an old frontier local preacher by 
 the name of Silas Bennett. After leaving the Round Val- 
 ley Indian Reservation for the north, we were without 
 roads for eighty miles. The country was traversed with 
 trails, and these so cut up and crossed with cattle trails 
 that it was difficult for a stranger to keep his course. The 
 settlements were few and many miles apart, and that in- 
 creased the difficulty. It was the second day out that we 
 lost our way. As evening drew near a heavy fog came in 
 from the coast, and not knowing where we were, or 
 whether there was a habitation within miles of us, I sug- 
 gested that we stop and camp for the night. Father Ben- 
 nett, however, insisted that we go on further. Presently 
 night set in, and the dense fog intensified the darkness. 
 Presently Brother Bennett's horse refused to go, though 
 he urged him with the spur. I entreated him to stop, and 
 wait for the day. Rain set in, so that we could not lie 
 down to rest. We made a fire and kept as comfortable as 
 
30 STORY OF MY LIVE. 
 
 possible. At the break of day we started to find a trail, 
 and found, to our joy, that we were within a mile of a 
 house, weary and hungry, as we had not eaten anything 
 for twenty-four hours. As we drew near the spot where 
 Father Bennett's horse refused to go further, to our great 
 horror we found we had been within ten feet of an awful 
 precipice, five hundred feet perpendicular. Our escape 
 from instant death was frightful to behold. We thanked 
 God for the instinct of the horse, that served us better 
 than our own reason. We stopped at a rude farmhouse, 
 where we and our horses were well cared for. It is 
 needless to say that we had a keen relish for the meal, 
 which we pronounced No. I. After rest, the host gave 
 us directions to strike our lost trail some time during 
 the day, but with no better luck than the day before. So 
 we were out a second night, and camped under a spread- 
 ing tree in a small prairie, and rested well in body, if not 
 in mind. It is not pleasant to be lost in a strange country. 
 Early in the following day we reached a small village 
 called Blocksburg, having a store, a blacksmith's-shop, 
 and three or four dwellings. 
 
 Two Remarkable Conversions. 
 
 Some notable cases of remarkable conversions have 
 come under my personal knowledge. Two occurred in 
 Honolulu in 1858 (see Appendix), and one at Clear Lake, 
 California, during my labors on the Petaluma District. 
 I had completed a round on the district, and had been 
 absent ten weeks. This was usual with me because of the 
 shape of my district. It was more than three hundred 
 miles long, and not more than a third as wide. My stay 
 at home was not more than eight to ten days in every 
 twelve weeks. One day while in my room making prepa- 
 rations to start on my next trip, a vivid impression came 
 to me to call on Moses Austin, my nearest neighbor, before 
 leaving the next day. This impression seemed as vivid 
 as if an audible voice had spoken the words. I dismissed 
 it as if it was an illusion, and resumed my preparation. 
 But in a moment or two it came with greater force and 
 
TWO REMARKABLE CONVERSIONS. 31 
 
 clearness, "You go and see Moses Austin before you leave 
 home !" I went out of my room immediately, and said to 
 Mrs. Turner, "I am going over to Mr. Austin," without 
 telling her what had transpired. Mentally, I am not given 
 to making account of hearing voices and following ordi- 
 nary impressions ; but I did not feel at liberty to treat this 
 case lightly. At first I said, "It is no use, he is an incor- 
 rigible infidel, and it will avail nothing to go ;" but I went. 
 I found him at home, which was rather an unlikely thing 
 at that hour of the day. Somehow I was impelled to 
 hasten, and went cross lots. I rapped at his door, and he 
 answered the knock and invited me in as if he expected 
 me. We passed the usual civilities, and he very soon put 
 this question to me, "Mr. Turner, why are not all men 
 Christians?" I instantly replied without premeditation: 
 "Because they do n't want to be. I mean those who know 
 what Christianity is." He emphatically dissented from 
 my reply. He could not see it in that light. I asked him 
 these pertinent questions : "Has God amply provided sal- 
 vation for the world?" "Yes, I suppose so." "Has He 
 given men natural and gracious ability to become Chris- 
 tians?" "The Bible seems to teach so." "Are the invi- 
 tations of God and His Son, Jesus Christ, large, gracious, 
 and sincere to come and accept?" "Yes, they appear so." 
 "Then, why do they not come and accept them ?" "It seems 
 to me, then, they are not Christians because they don't 
 want to be; they want to be something else more than they 
 want to be Christians." "O, I can not accept that view of 
 it." "Mr. Austin, are you willing that I should read from 
 the Word of God, and are you willing to get down with 
 me and let us ask God about this question you have put 
 to me?" He declined my offer to read and pray to God 
 for light. I said : "Mr. Austin, this is your house, and you 
 have a right to decline my offer ; and I am too much of a 
 gentleman to insist on it in your home." He still de- 
 clined, and I told him it was useless for him and me to go 
 into a long discussion of the matter, and that my time 
 would not permit me to do so now. 
 
 I took my hat to depart, and it came to my mind that 
 
32 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 I had a sick horse in my stable, and that he needed atten- 
 tion, and as both of my sons were absent from home, I 
 asked him if he would assist me in giving it some medicine. 
 He said, "Certainly," for he was a kind neighbor. As we 
 were passing to my home I laid my hand softly on his 
 shoulder, and said, "Mr. Austin, the reason that you are 
 not a Christian, is because you do n't want to be.'* He 
 looked me full in the face, but made no reply. I saw he 
 was feeling deeply. Presently I laid my hand on his 
 shoulder the second time, and repeated the same words. 
 1 observed he was stirred with deep emotion. When we 
 reached the stable and were entering, I laid my hand softly 
 on his shoulder and said, "My brother, the reason you 
 are not a Christian is because you do n't want to be." 
 He burst into tears and said, "O, Mr. Turner, pray for 
 me." I gave him such encouragement and help as I 
 could; but he was so much agitated that in giving the 
 animal medicine he spilled most of it; but I took the will 
 for the deed. 
 
 You will be surprised, as I was after I learned the case, 
 that he was under deep conviction for his sins and had 
 been seeking religion for weeks when I went to see him 
 and requested to read the Bible and pray with him in his 
 own home, and yet declined to have me do so, and ask 
 God why he was not a Christian. He had been going out 
 into the woods and brush for days to pray, and took his 
 gun with him to make the neighbors think he was after 
 game. An old lady by the name of Piner, who lived near 
 him, had observed when he came in from hunting that his 
 knees were wet from kneeling, and learned from him after 
 his conversion that the gun was used for the sole purpose 
 of concealing his convictions. When I called he was under 
 strong temptation to conceal his religious convictions, for 
 he well knew that I had full knowledge of his open infi- 
 delity in that community. He had ridiculed the Bible and 
 religion in the presence of his wife and two beautiful 
 young daughters, and to have me ask him to take the Bible 
 on the stand and read it in their presence at this time, 
 after asking me the question he did, was too much for his 
 
TWO REMARKABLE CONVERSIONS. 33 
 
 pride ; and he, like a moral coward, refused to do the very 
 thing he in his soul wanted done. But I am perfectly con- 
 vinced that God sent me that day to help him all I could 
 in his struggle to find Christ and salvation. It is not pos- 
 sible that I could have known that he had any thought or 
 desire to become a Christian. Had any one intimated 
 that there was any probability of his becoming an active 
 Christian, I should have been exceedingly skeptical about 
 such a probability. When I returned to my own home, 
 after parting with him at the stable, I said to Mrs. 
 Turner: "Mother, I believe Moses Austin will be a con- 
 verted man and be an earnest Christian before I get back 
 from my next trip," telling her of what had transpired. 
 
 Some person had put a book named "Nelson on Infi- 
 delity" in his hand, which, under God's blessing, com- 
 pletely overthrew his infidelity, and led him to Christ. 
 According to my expectation, after my return I learned 
 of his happy conversion and union with the Church. I 
 asked him if my reply to his question, "Why the world 
 are not Christians?" was the correct one in his case and 
 that of all enlightened sinners." He replied, "It is cor- 
 rect." 
 
 Permit me to narrate the effect his conversion had 
 upon his boon companions in sin and on the community 
 largely. Mr. Austin was the ringleader in the neighbor- 
 hood of a little knot of skeptics, and was influential among 
 men who frequented the saloons of the town of Kelsey- 
 ville. His conversion produced a sensation among his 
 class. One night in the prominent saloon of the place his 
 conversion was the subject of comment and doubt. So a 
 committee of two was appointed to visit Austin and report. 
 He lived out of town some distance. They called on him 
 one night to satisfy themselves about the rumors concern- 
 ing his conversion. They came and were welcomed with 
 the same cordiality and frankness that he commonly mani- 
 fested. The evening was spent in pleasant conversation 
 on neighborhood topics, and when the time came that the 
 visitors began to show signs of taking leave, without ask- 
 ing any direct questions about their mission, Austin broke 
 
 3 
 
34 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 in, anticipating their special business, and remarked: 
 "Gentlemen, I suppose you have heard something of my 
 change of life and conversion? It is true, I have changed. 
 We have been good friends and boon companions for 
 several years, and I am glad to say that I believe that I 
 have found a better way to live. Now, if you have no 
 objections, I will be glad to read a chapter from the 
 Bible and have a word of prayer before you depart." Of 
 course, to that they could not decidedly object, and con- 
 sented. He read and read impressively from the old 
 Family Bible. In prayer, he asked God's blessing on the 
 visitors and on all his old associates in sin, that God's 
 truth might find them, as it had him. The prayer was 
 also impressive and tender, and I hope made a salutary 
 impression on the visitors. On their return to the saloon 
 they reported that, in their opinion, there was a great 
 change in Austin, and that there was no doubt he was 
 truly converted. When I last heard from him through 
 others he was faithful and active in Church work, and this 
 occurred over thirty years ago. 
 
 The incident of the conversion of Moses Austin made 
 so deep an impression on my mind, that while passing 
 from the stable to my house this passage of Scripture came 
 to me with such force and pertinence to what had trans- 
 pired in the last two hours that a whole sermon lay in 
 outline before me without premeditation. It is this, "Ye 
 will not come unto Me that ye might have life." This has 
 been among the most effective sermons in my ministry. 
 Not a great sermon for some men, but effective for me, 
 because God made it such by my connection with the facts 
 related in this notable conversion. It seemed to me some- 
 thing of a revelation, as I had no possible knowledge of 
 that man's spiritual state and the conflict he was passing 
 through from infidelity to faith in Christ. I know now 
 that God does reveal some things to susceptible souls, that 
 they could not know otherwise. 
 
 During my connection with the Napa Collegiate Insti- 
 tute in California, some time in the year 1865, I was called 
 up in the night to come to the bedside of a Mr. Samuel 
 
TWO REMARKABLE CONVERSIONS. 35 
 
 Heald, who was supposed to be dying. He was a fine 
 type of a moral business man, and an active temperance 
 advocate. The doctor had announced to the family that 
 nothing more could be done for the patient, and the family 
 had gathered in anxious suspense to witness the depar- 
 ture. Mrs. Heald was anxious that I should talk with her 
 husband about his outlook for the future. His mind was 
 perfectly clear. I said: "Friend Heald (for we were firm 
 friends), are you ready for the change awaiting you?'' 
 He was satisfied the end was very near. He said, "No, 
 I am not, I fear." "Can you not throw yourself on the 
 mercy of God through Jesus Christ?" "No, that would 
 be a cowardly and unmanly act. I have known for years 
 that I ought to be an active Christian, but have tried to 
 satisfy myself that morality would do." I urged him to 
 make the surrender now, and that God would accept him 
 and Jesus would save him at this late hour, even "the 
 eleventh hour;" but he adhered to his feeling that it would 
 be unmanly to ask God for salvation now. I felt under the 
 circumstances of his firmness at some loss what reply to 
 make; but I finally said: "Brother Heald, if you were 
 certain that God would, so to speak, meet you half way 
 and protract your life, would you be manly enough to 
 become a Christian?" "I most certainly would." Now 
 a sudden change took place that hour, and the next day, to 
 the surprise of the doctor and all of us that had met in 
 that chamber of death, Samuel Heald got well. The first 
 Sabbath that he was able to leave the house he attended 
 the church, which was "hard by" his dwelling. I was 
 present on that Sabbath, and saw Mr. Heald take his seat 
 near the door. At the close of the sermon he arose and 
 asked permission to speak a word, which was granted. 
 He referred to his late sickness, and the promise he had 
 made of God would spare his life that he would become 
 an active Christian. "I am here before this congregation 
 and my neighbors to fulfill that vow." I need not say that 
 there was a breakdown in that Church that day. There 
 was an honest man, and he showed that God could trust 
 him. Samuel Heald lived several years after this., and 
 
36 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 was a blessing to his family and the Church. I shall 
 never forget that night and that Sabbath in Napa 
 City. 
 
 I desire to make this record, that much of my best and 
 most permanent work of my long ministry has been ac- 
 complished by my pastoral work, done tenderly but faith- 
 fully in such cases as are here recorded. 
 
 Indian Reservations. 
 
 During President Grant's Administration the Indian 
 reservations were parceled out among the religious de- 
 nominations of the country. The Round Valley and 
 Hoopa Reservations of Northern California were under 
 the care of the Methodist Episcopal Church. These were 
 both within the bounds of my district, and under my 
 special oversight in Church matters, as we had pastors at 
 both reservations. These I visited quarterly for a period 
 of four years, and had opportunity to see the fruits of 
 religious care and improved social, educational, and re- 
 ligious development on the Indian mind. They had Eng- 
 lish schools in which the children make creditable ad- 
 vancement. They learned trades, blacksmiths, harness- 
 makers, carpenters, millers, and farmers. I found some 
 who were capable of running engines in grist and saw 
 mills, and also in the harvest fields. At the Round Valley 
 Reservation I attended a Fourth of July celebration con- 
 ducted largely by the Indians, that was quite creditable. 
 A boy fourteen years of age, who received his education 
 in the Indian school, read the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence, and threw in the shade for excellence more than 
 three or four readers that I have heard at American cele- 
 brations. The Indian is a natural orator. 
 
 A large dinner for the crowd of four of five hundred 
 people, white and Indian, was entirely in the hands of 
 the Indian men and women. The waiters were mostly 
 well-dressed women — dresses made by Indian seam- 
 stresses. The Indians were well behaved — much better 
 than many whites on such occasions — showing careful 
 training on the part of the agent and teachers placed over 
 
INDIAN RESERVATIONS. 37 
 
 them. On this occasion I heard an Indian, who had been 
 on this reservation a few years from rude barbarism, say 
 publicly that day : "I begin to feel that I am an American 
 citizen. I thank the Government and the Church for what 
 they are doing for my people and my own children/' 
 This he said in broken English, and was deeply af- 
 fected. 
 
 Rev. J. L,. Burchard, agent on this reservation, was a 
 man of six feet and two inches, weighing over two hun- 
 dred pounds, and every inch a man physically, mentally, 
 and morally. He was loved and respected by the Indians, 
 and feared by desperate white men who sometimes 
 prowled about the reservation. He had an Indian police 
 that he used to good account as occasion required. There 
 was a desperado called Texas, who gave them trouble by 
 bringing whisky on the grounds, and selling it to some of 
 the Indians. Burchard and two of his police laid for 
 him and caught him. Burchard seized and threw him, 
 and the police tied and carried him to the lockup. This 
 act of the agent greatly surprised the Indians, who feared 
 Texas. Another act of Burchard worthy of note was 
 this : The reservation had a large tract of fine pasture 
 land, and stockmen trespassed on it with their cattle in 
 former times, but learned that they could not do so under 
 his administration, so they attempted to bribe him. They 
 sent an agent with a sack of twenty-dollar gold pieces as 
 a nominal sum for the privilege. The man entered his 
 office and laid the gold on his table, and told Burchard that 
 was at his personal disposal. Burchard reached for his 
 heavy cane, and told him to take the money and leave. 
 He left. That agent was absolutely incorruptible. I knew 
 him well. He was a man of a thousand possessing re- 
 markable administrative ability, and the most successful 
 agent I ever knew, unless it was Father Wilbur of the 
 Yakima Reservation in the State of Washington. 
 
 There were two Indians in our Church at Round Val- 
 ley whom I desire to mention, as to the effect the Church 
 had upon the Indians generally, and these particularly. 
 They both professed conversion, and exemplified it in 
 
*8 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 their lives, as did many others whom I can not speak of 
 in this narrative. One of the two told of his conversion 
 one day in a love-feast in my hearing. He spoke in 
 broken English. He had been, by his own and others' 
 account, a desperate man. He represented that his "moral 
 condition was like a fellow with ragged clothes, all be- 
 fouled with mud and filth, and who had been washed clean 
 and dressed in clean, new clothes." He could not read 
 a word of English, and did not know that the Bible says 
 that the convert is "a new creature in Christ Jesus." If 
 you could have seen his illumined face that day as he 
 told his simple and forcible experience, you would not 
 have doubted its reality. 
 
 The other case was an Indian named Sam Ray, a man 
 I should say about thirty-five years old. He also had been 
 a bad Indian, and had lived with a notoriously bad white 
 family by the name of Ray before coming to the reser- 
 vation. He could talk fair English, and usually spoke 
 and prayed in English, but was fluent in his own tongue. 
 He was not boisterous or demonstrative, as some of them 
 are, but clear and remarkably reverent, especially so in 
 prayer. I do not now remember having heard any white 
 Christian who impressed me as he did in prayer. It 
 seemed as if God was standing by his side, and he in 
 reverential attitude before the Almighty ! A gentleman 
 skeptic was present on one occasion when Sam led in 
 prayer, and remarked that it was "wonderful and un- 
 usual !" His was one of the most convincing facts of 
 the supernaturalism of Christianity that I have witnessed. 
 This Indian's piety and spirituality were so unique that 
 certain white people, and especially the "family he had 
 lived with, undertook to have him arrested and brought 
 before the court to prove him insane and taken to the 
 asylum. They caught him and tied him with ropes, and 
 hauled him many miles in an open wagon in the hot sun 
 to the county seat. He pleaded with them to release him, 
 and told them he was not insane, and said that there was 
 a time when he would have fought them ; but now that he 
 was a Christian he could not fight. The court did not 
 
REMOVAL TO WASHINGTON, 39 
 
 on examination find him insane, and released him. He 
 prayed for their forgiveness, showing the Christlike spirit, 
 a marvel of grace ! The work at the Hoopa Reservation 
 was not as prosperous as at the Round Valley, and, as I 
 think, not as fortunately manned. 
 
 Removal to Washington Territory. 
 
 My time on the Petaluma District having closed by 
 limitation of Church law, I was assigned by the Confer- 
 ence to Second Church, Oakland, California. The change 
 from outdoor life to station work did not, as I had feared, 
 prove favorable to my health. During the year I had a 
 slight hemorrhage of the lungs. My people becoming 
 somewhat concerned about me, gave me a vacation of six 
 weeks. My older son being in Portland, Oregon, desired 
 me to accompany him to Washington Territory. This I 
 did, and returned to my charge greatly improved and 
 resumed my labors. Before the year ended I had a re- 
 lapse. While in Washington Territory I had been urged 
 to accept an appointment in the Columbia River Confer- 
 ence, as they were short of help here on the frontier, and 
 was offered the first charge of the Conference as an in- 
 ducement, which I declined, saying if I ever concluded to 
 change it would be with the understanding that my ap- 
 pointment, however small, would be acceptable and wil- 
 lingly received. On these conditions, and with the hope 
 of improved health, I finally decided to come. 
 
 It will be twenty-five years, September, 1904, since my 
 arrival. Colfax was my first appointment. It had a pop- 
 ulation of about two hundred people. There were seven 
 members in the town, and a few in the country. There 
 was no church edifice. There was a parsonage, which 
 had a stove or two, and a cupboard, I think. The winter 
 coming on soon, we found the upper story quite open 
 about the eaves. The thermometer registered thirty de- 
 grees below zero, the coldest winter in twenty-four years, 
 I think. The change from California was great, not only 
 in temperature, but in house accommodations and salary. 
 But this was compensated for by the cordiality of the peo- 
 
40 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 pie and the decided improvement of my health. My three 
 years' stay in Colfax was in some respects the most pleas- 
 ant and profitable of my ministry of fifty years. We built 
 a church and greatly improved the parsonage. I received 
 the subscriptions, bought the lumber, and did most of the 
 outside painting myself. The membership was materially 
 increased, and the second year we entertained the Annual 
 Conference of some sixty ministers, among a population 
 of not over four hundred people. The hospitality was 
 generous, and was most enjoyable to the ministers and 
 their hosts. The next day, after adjournment, the little 
 newspaper of the place got off a most amusing cartoon of 
 the notable meeting of the ministers. Two roosters stuck 
 their heads through a fence, on opposite sides of a promi- 
 nent alley, and this colloquy took place, it was said: 
 
 "And are we yet alive, 
 And see each other's face?" 
 
 None enjoyed this more than "the Cloth," for they had 
 fared sumptuously during their stay in that little city in 
 the Gorge. 
 
 At the close of this stay at Colfax I was again called 
 to the Presiding Eldership, with residence at L,ewiston, 
 Idaho. My district extended from the village of Spokane 
 Falls to Walla Walla, and from the Big Bend of the Co- 
 lumbia River to Mt. Idaho, sixty miles east of Lewiston. 
 Railroads were unknown, except a little "Strap Road" 
 from Walla Walla to Wallula, and there were few trav- 
 eled roads in Eastern Washington. I went mostly on 
 horseback or in a buggy. To meet all the appointments 
 in the bounds of this district required about twelve hun- 
 dred miles of travel every three months. This in my case 
 continued for six years, greatly to the benefit of my 
 health. Since this time I have been in circuit, station, 
 and school work. For the last four or five years I have 
 had a superannuated relation, not being able to do full and 
 effective labor in station work, though I have and do some 
 work in destitute places now. I am now (1904) "in the 
 sear and yellow leaf," nearing my fourscore years, and 
 
REMOVAL TO WASHINGTON. 41 
 
 fifty-fourth since I preached my first sermon. I thank 
 God with all my heart that "He counted me worthy of put- 
 ting me into the ministry." 
 
 Both of the Conferences in which I have spent my 
 active life have treated me generously. I had the honor 
 of representing the California Conference in the General 
 Conference once and twice by my adopted Conference, and 
 was elected alternate delegate to the Ecumenical Confer- 
 ence in 1891. I am greatly attached to the ministers I 
 have intimately known and labored with in the California 
 and Columbia River Conferences. My work has been 
 largely done when these Conferences were laying the 
 foundations of the Church, and were in a true sense pio- 
 neers of these great Western States. Twenty-seven years 
 in California and twenty-five in Washington ! This has 
 been a great privilege and a great opportunity. 
 
 My elder son John, who spent a few days with me at 
 the time of Mrs. Turner's recent and very sudden death, 
 asked this strange but pertinent question: "Father, if 
 you had your life to live over again, would you adopt the 
 calling of the Christian ministry?" 
 
 I unhesitatingly replied, "I certainly would." 
 
 "Well, I am glad to hear you say so." 
 
 "My son, I am gratified that you feel so. Not that I 
 feel that I have realized my own ideal, but with all its 
 deficiencies I would not exchange it for any position or 
 calling in life that I have known." 
 
 I have had some fears at times that some of my chil- 
 dren felt that the Methodist ministry did not afford the 
 best opportunity to properly educate and train a family 
 of growing boys and girls, because of constant change of 
 place; but upon the whole our children will compare 
 favorably with the best citizenship of the country as to 
 culture and usefulness, I hope. Now when the time comes, 
 as it soon will, that I am summoned to change worlds, 
 if I can only hear the welcome, "Well done ! Thou hast 
 been faithful in a few things, enter into the joy of thy 
 Lord," my sum of happiness will be complete ! 
 
42 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 Darwinism. 
 
 Some twelve years ago, in Spokane, I was drawn into 
 a lengthy discussion on the Darwinian "Theory of the 
 Origin of Man" with a Unitarian preacher by the name 
 of Wheelock. He had preached a sermon in which he 
 assailed the Mosaic account, and not satisfied with pre- 
 senting it to his own congregation, which was his right, 
 he had it published in one of the leading papers of the 
 city. It was couched in such extravagant terms as to re- 
 flect seriously on the orthodox Churches. I ventured to 
 reply to it, and requested him to give his authority for 
 some of his statements in the sermon. This reasonable 
 request he shrewdly evaded, and charged the orthodox 
 preachers of feeding the people on "worm-eaten and effete 
 mythology." He called us "mummied keepers of mum- 
 mies/' "human moles and bats, who can not see that it is 
 dawn-time;" that we are "living in a past age," and are 
 "camping with Moses," and with Mr. Jasper, who said, 
 "The sun do move." These charitable (?) insinuations 
 are specimens from what is claimed to be "liberal Chris- 
 tianity." After three or four letters passing between us 
 in the Spokesman-Review, I challenged him to a public 
 discussion of the Darwinian theory, which he declined on 
 the pretext that his health would not justify his accept- 
 ance of the challenge; but he sent to Chicago and got a 
 prominent infidel by the name of Underwood to come and 
 answer me. I attended his first lecture. Mr. Wheelock 
 sat on the platform with him, and the lecturer said pub- 
 licly "that he had not come here to answer Mr. Turner." 
 I think Mr. Wheelock felt greatly disappointed, as did 
 some others. 
 
 As a final result of the correspondence between Mr. 
 Wheelock and myself through the Spokesman-Review, and 
 his declining my challenge, I was requested by the Young 
 Men's Christian Association of this city to deliver a course 
 of lectures on Evolution as taught by Charles Darwin 
 and others. These lectures created considerable interest 
 at the time, but are of such a philosophical character as 
 
DARWINISM. 43 
 
 probably not to interest general readers now. I may, 
 however, publish them in the Appendix. 
 
 "The survival of the fittest" is especially untrue in the 
 moral world, as we often observe. Lincoln, Garfield, and 
 McKinley did not survive the wretches that murdered 
 them. The most delicate and purest of the race are often 
 shortlived. But truth and purity will ultimately triumph 
 over robust sin and corruption; but Bible righteousness 
 is the only evolution that can ultimately survive the rav- 
 ages and lapses of sin in our world. I can not believe 
 that our Infinite and loving Father can take pleasure in 
 the strong oppressing the weak and innocent. This is a 
 horrible reflection on Divine goodness. My God when He 
 created man pronounced the work "very good." There 
 was nothing to harm in the Eden state. After the Fall 
 this state was reversed. Under the scheme of redemption 
 under Christ, the prophetic statement is made that "The 
 wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall 
 lie down with the kid ; and the calf and the young lion and 
 the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. 
 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones 
 shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like 
 an ox ; and the sucking child shall play on the hole of the 
 asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cock- 
 atrice's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy 
 mountain." (Isa. xi, 6-9.) This is Paradise lost and Para- 
 dise regained — lost by sin and regained by righteousness. 
 
 At the time of these lectures I felt quite confident that 
 the Darwinian theory was untenable, and in time would 
 collapse. The revulsion has already come, and I believe 
 it is doomed. Eduard Von Hartmann, the veteran phi- 
 losopher of Germany, in a recently published article headed 
 "The Passing of Darwinism," says : "Among the latest 
 opponents of Darwin's views are such savants as Eimer, 
 Gustaf Wolf, De Vries, Hooke, Von Wellstein, Fleisch- 
 man, Reinke, and others." (Nat. Philosophy, Vol. XI, 
 1903.) It is well known that Hartman is not prejudiced 
 in favor of the Biblical view, and this gives greater sig- 
 nificance and weight to what he says. 
 
44 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 Other scholars. "I emphasize that word because so 
 much stress has been put upon it by recent Darwinians. 
 I think Hartmann does not do justice to the reaction that 
 has set in against Darwin's views." Professor Zoechler, 
 of the University of Griefwald, voices this sentiment. He 
 says Hartmann's article is the tombstone inscription for 
 Darwinism. 
 
 The most pronounced convert to anti-Darwin views 
 is Professor Fleischman, of Erlangen, who says "The 
 Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to con- 
 firm it in the realm of Nature." 
 
 Rudolph Virchow, probably the greatest scholar, anat- 
 omist, and scientist of Europe, just before his recent death 
 pronounced emphatically against the theory of Charles 
 Darwin. So we see that the reaction has come, and Moses 
 and the Bible are in the ascendant. 
 
 My Associates in Christian Work. 
 
 This biographical sketch of my life would not be faith- 
 ful and complete without speaking of the men I have 
 known, and who have greatly influenced me for good. 
 Under God, I owe most to my parents for what I have 
 mentally, physically, and morally inherited from them. 
 They are living to-day in me to all who have known me 
 and have been influenced by me. We are living in the 
 past, and ihe past is living in us, as certainly as heredity 
 is a great fact. Thank God for favorable antecedents 
 and for good environments ! You see I am somewhat of 
 an Evolutionist, but it is a Theistic evolution I believe in. 
 
 But I am to speak of the men who have greatly im- 
 pressed and influenced me. I call to mind a man named 
 Christian Shoup, my first class-leader. He made a deep 
 impression on my youthful Church life. He was not a 
 man of much education, but of good common sense and 
 deep, consistent piety. His fatherly interest in me did 
 much to modify my religious character. One fact in his 
 life of which I became conversant, was his family re- 
 ligion. Three times a day family prayer was had in that 
 home — morning, noon, and night — as regularly as the 
 
ASSOCIATES IN CHRISTIAN WORK. 45 
 
 day came. He was a man "diligent in business, yet fervent 
 in spirit, serving God." He was eminently fitted for a 
 class-leader in the Methodist Episcopal Church; one of 
 the best, if not the best, I have known in fifty years. In 
 the year 1869, after an absence of seventeen years from 
 my native place, I made my way to the class-meeting, and 
 found my old leader still in office. I intensely enjoyed the 
 hour. It is a sweet memory to this day. 
 
 The men of my college days, who most impressed me 
 at Ohio Wesleyan University, were Professor Williams, 
 teacher of Latin; Professor Merrick, Professor McCabe, 
 and President Edward Thomson. Professor Williams, 
 modest, gentlemanly, and painstaking, I am not surprised 
 to learn that he distinguished himself in his later life as 
 a scholar. Professor Merrick will be remembered by his 
 beautiful piety, and also for his learning and culture. He 
 was a moral force in the university, and highly respected 
 by most, if not all the students. Professor McCabe had 
 charge of the Mathematics during my stay there. He 
 held the students to strict account in the class-room. No 
 books were allowed in hand while at the blackboard. In 
 this he was not popular with lazy students ; but he was a 
 capital teacher and made thorough scholars. 
 
 President Thomson was an excellent teacher and an 
 accomplished man. Unpretentious and unaffected, he was 
 modest, and in my view approachable. He took great in- 
 terest in young men who were struggling to educate them- 
 selves, and encouraged them. He commanded respect 
 because of his superior knowledge, as well as by his trans- 
 parent goodness. While I remained there he lectured 
 nearly every Sabbath afternoon in the College Hall, which 
 was filled with students, the Faculty, and citizens of Dela- 
 ware. And such lectures ! They were transcendent as 
 literary productions, and packed with moral and religious 
 truth. He was also an able and interesting preacher. As 
 I remember him, he was at times quite abstracted. I 
 heard it reported of him that at a certain camp-meeting in 
 Ohio, near Mansfield, he and his wife went visiting her 
 parents at that place. Having preached on Sabbath on 
 
46 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 the ground, many met them. While he was shaking hands 
 with one and another whom he knew, he extended his 
 hand to a lady and said, "Sister, I ought to know you, but 
 the name has escaped me." It proved to be his own wife, 
 to the amusement of some who witnessed the scene. He 
 possessed remarkable power of concentration and abstrac- 
 tion. On his first visit to California as bishop I had him 
 baptize one of my children. His opening address at Con- 
 ference was the finest description of California, its climate 
 and productions, that I have ever read. He had been in 
 the State only a few weeks, and told us more than we had 
 learned in years. I doubt if it has ever been equaled in 
 literary excellence or in keen knowledge. As an essayist 
 he has not been excelled by Emerson or any other Amer- 
 ican author. 
 
 In Asbury University the teachers who impressed me 
 most were Professors Wheeler, Larrabee, and President 
 Berry. Professor Wheeler was not a broad scholar, but 
 a hard student and very conscientious and correct in the 
 branches he taught; withal a true Christian gentleman. 
 I was in his classes four years, and know him well. He 
 kept in touch with me for some time by letter in California 
 and at the Sandwich Islands. He finally became president 
 of Baldwin University, illustrating what pluck and in- 
 dustry can do for an ordinary man. 
 
 Professor Larrabee was a fine teacher and superior 
 lecturer. He was somewhat eccentric, but a lovable man 
 and quite popular with the students. 
 
 President Lucian Berry was not what might be called 
 a man of extensive learning. He was an able preacher, 
 and had administrative ability. He was retiring and not 
 very approachable with students generally; but when he 
 preached, as he was frequently called on to do by the city 
 pastors, he had a large hearing. He had spent most of 
 his public life in the Gospel ministry, and was at home in 
 the pulpit. Compared with Matthew Simpson, who pre- 
 ceded him as president of Asbury University, he of course 
 suffered by the contrast, as did many of Simpson's suc- 
 cessors in this institution. One thing that greatly sur- 
 
ASSOCIATES IN CHRISTIAN WORK. 47 
 
 prised me in President Berry was this : While conducting 
 the revival in the schoolhouse where I preached my first 
 sermon, I sent word to him to come and relieve me and 
 allow me to return to my studies in school. He replied 
 that saving souls at that particular time and place was 
 more important than wrestling with Latin and Greek 
 verbs, and declined to come, and gave as his reason that 
 if he came he would kill the revival. He thought no 
 man could take my place without damage to the meeting. 
 I did not understand it at the time ; but have seen enough 
 in my da*y to convince me that he was probably correct, 
 though he was a great preacher and had talent as an evan- 
 gelist. He is one of the men in my college life that greatly 
 impressed me. 
 
 Some of the men in the Gospel ministry whom I have 
 known intimately greatly influenced my life; how greatly 
 I may never fully know till I join the Church triumphant. 
 William Taylor, the "California Street Preacher," lately 
 known as Bishop Taylor, of Africa, I knew intimately 
 in his early career in San Francisco as Bethel and street 
 preacher. He was remarkable in personal appearance, in 
 voice, in song, and in utterance. He was eminently an 
 open-air preacher. He possessed tact, generalship, and 
 administrative ability. His popularity with saint and sin- 
 ner was unusual. He was fearless in denouncing sin in 
 high and low places, but in a way so as to give no offense. 
 No preacher in San Francisco had the respect that Wil- 
 liam Taylor had in his day. If a gambler died and his 
 friends wanted him to have a Christian burial, they called 
 on Taylor, and he never failed to warn them of their dan- 
 gerous course and discouraged the life they were leading. 
 He was so sincere and faithful as to command their ad- 
 miration and confidence. He was an able New Testament 
 preacher, and probably more widely known in Europe, 
 India, Australia, South America, and Africa than any 
 other American preacher. 
 
 Dr. Martin C. Briggs was one of the pioneer Meth- 
 odist preachers in California, and a man of note. He ex- 
 celled as a platform speaker and preacher of that class. 
 
48 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 For years he filled the first appointments, and served as 
 Presiding Elder one or two terms. He possessed a fine 
 physique and pleasant voice, and was generally popular. 
 During the Rebellion it is thought he did more than any 
 one man in California to keep the State from going with 
 the South. The people of Southern proclivities threat- 
 ened to mob him on one or two occasions. He was fear- 
 less and able in his defense of the Government. 
 
 Dr. Edward Bannister was among the second contin- 
 gency that came to California as a transfer from an East- 
 ern Conference. He was a valuable accession to the old 
 California Conference. He was a scholarly man and an 
 able preacher. My connection with him in the University 
 of the Pacific while he was president was very cordial 
 and congenial. I regarded him as eminently suited to that 
 responsible position. After I left the Napa Collegiate 
 Institute because of impaired health, and entered the pas- 
 toral work, he was my Presiding Elder for two years, and 
 I never had an abler or more brotherly one than he. 
 I think he surpassed any man I ever knew in preaching 
 to a small congregation. His Saturday sermons were 
 equal to any that he gave us on Sunday mornings, when 
 he had a large hearing. He was able at any time, and at 
 times powerful. He was a close student, and made careful 
 preparation for the pulpit. To my mind, his chief relig- 
 ious characteristic was conscientiousness. He came of 
 good intellectual and Methodist stock. He left his im- 
 press on California Methodism. 
 
 I desire to speak of two men especially of the Meth- 
 odist ministers who impressed me more than others. They 
 were Revs. George Clifford and Hiram C. Tallman. 
 Neither of the two could be called men of note as to great 
 preaching ability or learning. Clifford was eminently a 
 practical man, of sound common sense, and good natural 
 ability. He was affable, earnest, and conscientious. He 
 was in demand for the Presiding Eldership, for which in 
 many respects he was eminently fitted. He possessed ad- 
 ministrative ability, and was popular with the men of his 
 district. He was careful and impartial, which was greatly 
 
'ASSOCIATES IN CHRISTIAN WORK. 49 
 
 in his favor. I think he was in district work longer than 
 any man of the Conference in the last forty years. He 
 has been elected General Conference delegate three or 
 four times. There is no question in my mind but that he 
 is the real father of the Church Extension Society in the 
 Methodist Episcipal Church, that is doing such a magnifi- 
 cent work in the world. He is about my own age, and 
 has recently retired from effective work. As we were in- 
 timate for twenty-five or thirty years, he greatly impressed 
 me as a man of God. 
 
 Hiram C. Tallman, the other man, had a limited edu- 
 cation, but had deep piety and large common sense, and 
 knew how to use it. He was a born evangelist. He could 
 not preach much according to the accepted standards, but 
 he was a fine exhorter and had tact and generalship in 
 revival work. I think he never served a charge without 
 a revival. I think I am safe in saying, in the years that 
 I knew him (some twenty-five) he had more conversions 
 than any man in the Conference, and more than any six 
 ministers I could name (but will not), myself among the 
 number. He was about forty years old when he left his 
 farm in Napa Valley at my instance, and commenced to 
 preach. Few men are more widely known and loved 
 than H. C. Tallman. I use the word loved advisedly. 
 "When the roll is called up yonder," I expect to hear 
 a good report of this man, so unpretentious, so genial, 
 so popular with the common people, "who heard him 
 gladly !" How much God can accomplish through a con- 
 secrated and good man with but one talent ! I thank God 
 that it was my privilege to know these men and labor with 
 them ! 
 
 John B. Hill was one of the early Methodist preachers 
 of the California Conference. He was slender in build, 
 was a blonde in color, nervous, but with a well-knit frame 
 of marvelous endurance. He was an admirable Confer- 
 ence Secretary, which position he held for many years. 
 He also was Book Agent in San Francisco for several 
 years. His business qualifications were of a high order, 
 and his reputation for honesty and integrity unimpeach- 
 4 
 
50 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 able. He was a good preacher, not eloquent, but prac- 
 tical and evangelical. I am not certain, but think he filled 
 one term in the Presiding Eldership. I followed him in 
 the Downieville charge. Two incidents occurred during 
 his pastorate worthy of note. He preached three times 
 every Sabbath; twice at Downieville and once at Forest 
 City, seven miles away. After the morning service he 
 took a hasty lunch, and went to a livery stable one Sab- 
 bath when he feared he had not time to reach his appoint- 
 ment in time on foot, and hired a mule that was regarded 
 as a good traveler and mountain climber. When he was 
 about half way up a seven-mile mountain he drew his 
 watch and found that he was sure to be late. He alighted 
 from his mule and turned his head homeward, and lighted 
 out on foot, and all aglow landed on the church platform 
 just in the nick of time. At another time and place he 
 was building a church, and the masons discovered that 
 they were about to run short of lime and none was obtain- 
 able in the place, and found there was none to be had 
 nearer than Marysville, fifty miles away. The stage was 
 supposed to make the distance some time during the day; 
 but the case seemed so urgent that he started on foot and 
 beat the stage. He would have, in my judgment, surpassed 
 the celebrated footman, Weston, had he given himself to 
 the profession, but he chose a higher calling. He once 
 said, "I preach with my legs." Yes, he did. He was 
 altogether an unusual and remarkable personage. He has 
 finished his course, and is crowned with an imperishable 
 coronet. 
 
 John W. Ross was among the early men of the Cali- 
 fornia Conference. He was about six feet one inch in 
 height, well formed, black hair, a fine face, and a courtly 
 gentleman of unaffected demeanor ; a fine preacher and an 
 imperial Presiding Elder. As I knew him he appeared to 
 be an unusually well-balanced man. He if alive is on 
 the retired list, full of years, and ripe for translation when 
 the Master speaks the "Well done ! Come up higher." 
 
 Others there are, and many in my old Conference, but 
 I can not individualize them in this brief history. I will 
 
ASSOCIATES IN CHRISTIAN WORK. 51 
 
 call the roll, but most of them will not answer here: 
 Isaac Owens, Adam Bland, John R. Tansy, John D. Blain, 
 R. B. Stratton, John Daniels, Elijah Merchant, Alfred 
 Higbie, C. V. Anthony, Eleazar Thomas, W. S. Urmy, 
 W. T. Mayne, Thomas S. Dunn, H. B. Heacock, and Wes- 
 ley Dennett, and others well beloved, who have made their 
 impression on my life. God bless the surviving veterans ! 
 The departed ones are more richly blessed, "and their 
 works do follow them." 
 
 In the Columbia River Conference, I feel I must speak 
 of some men who have greatly impressed and helped me. 
 And first I would mention Milton S. Anderson. He is 
 now the oldest living probationer, or rather the oldest 
 probationer of this Conference, and the first whose ac- 
 quaintance I made twenty-five years ago this month 
 (May). His first circuit was nearly as large as the Walla 
 Walla and Spokane Districts combined. He has witnessed 
 the infancy and growth of the Columbia River Conference, 
 and had been no small factor in its development. His 
 administrative ability is of the first order. It is no dis- 
 paragement to any member of this Conference to say that 
 he is the ablest debater in the body, for there are a num- 
 ber of men able in this regard, and they all can not be 
 "primus," or first. He was always a faithful and success- 
 ful Presiding Elder and sound, practical preacher. He 
 deserves well of the body for his long and faithful service. 
 
 William J. White, now commonly called Father White, 
 is a man that has greatly impressed me for his qualities 
 of head and heart. No man in this Conference is more 
 noted than this remarkable personage. He is the John 
 the Baptist of the body. Modest, retiring, and fearless in 
 the expression of his convictions, he is the pink of con- 
 scientiousness, faultless in behavior, and absolutely con- 
 sistent in living up to his convictions, and an able preacher 
 in his peculiar vein and mold. To those who do not know 
 him intimately he may appear distant and unsocial; but 
 he is a most genial and lovable person when you know 
 him as he is. I first saw him over thirty years ago in 
 California, at a camp-meeting in Napa Valley. He seemed 
 
52 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 a stranger to every one on the ground. The meeting had 
 lasted over two weeks. Eminent preachers had been pres- 
 ent from San Francisco and other parts of the State; but 
 there was no movement of power in the meeting. On the 
 second Sabbath in the afternoon this man White had been 
 invited to preach, only because no one else could be in- 
 duced to fill the hour. I remember well the text, "I be- 
 seech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God," etc. 
 And what a sermon ! I doubt if John the Baptist ever 
 preached a more searching one. After the sermon he re- 
 tired to the woods. The inquiry over all the encampment 
 was, "Who is the man who preached that sermon?" No 
 one seemed to know who he was or where he came from. 
 I made his acquaintance the next day, and learned some- 
 thing of his history. Ever since I have known him inti- 
 mately, and have been his Presiding Elder in California 
 and in this Conference. There is no man in this body I 
 esteem more highly. It is worth while to know this 
 unique man and minister of Jesus, as I and most of you 
 have known him. 
 
 One other member of the Columbia River Conference, 
 who has very recently been translated, it gives me a great 
 pleasure to mention, is John Uren. He came into this 
 Conference shortly after my transfer from California. 
 He was an impressive man in two or three respects. He 
 was an imperial preacher from a Scriptural standpoint. 
 Animated, Biblical, packed with pertinent Scriptures, well 
 arranged, convincing, soul-stirring, and highly spiritual — 
 in a word, a master in his peculiar line. A Christian gen- 
 tleman without affectation, and beautifully modest. What 
 impressed me most in his life was his bearing towards 
 his invalid wife, who for more than twenty years was as 
 helpless as a child. This woman was his constant daily 
 care. He had to undress and care for her much of these 
 years, as if she had been an infant. The wonder was, 
 how he could preach and serve the charges all these years 
 with such exceptional acceptability ! He was always in 
 demand among the best charges in this Conference. His 
 departure from us was sudden and unlooked for, as he 
 
'ASSOCIATES IN CHRISTIAN WORK. S3 
 
 was in robust health and in his prime. Blessed man ! I 
 loved him as a brother and man of God. 
 
 I met Samuel G. Havermale for an hour or two on my 
 first visit to Washington, while he was preaching at Day- 
 ton. I was delighted with this genial minister. Soon 
 after this he superannuated, and I have known him in this 
 relation for a number of years. He was regarded as an 
 eloquent and able preacher while in the effective work. 
 He passed away recently peacefully and full of years. 
 
 James H. Wilbur, better known as Father Wilbur, 
 came to Oregon some time in the forties. He was tall, 
 well proportioned, weighing about two hundred pounds 
 without obesity, muscular, a giant in strength. A Meth- 
 odist preacher of the old school, a loyal Methodist, an ex- 
 cellent Presiding Elder, a superior Indian agent under 
 President Grant's Administration, and a munificent giver 
 for a man of his wealth. His record is on high, and "his 
 works do follow him." Wilbur Academy in Oregon and 
 Wilbur Chapel in Walla Walla, Washington, are monu- 
 ments of his gifts and memorials of the man. 
 
 Dr. Harvey K. Hines came to Oregon in the year 1852, 
 He was transferred from one of the New York Confer- 
 ences. He had spent his ministerial life principally in the 
 Oregon and Columbia River Conferences. He was a man 
 of medium stature, fine personality, a perennial Presiding 
 Elder, a fine preacher, and able writer and author of some 
 note. He was for some years editor of the Pacific Chris- 
 tian Advocate. His history of early Methodism in Oregon 
 is of a high order. He was a genial personality among us. 
 
 Theodore Hoagland is one of the oldest, if not the 
 oldest, living members of the body. He is an able 
 preacher, and something of a poet. He has also ability as 
 a writer, but is greatly handicapped by extreme deafness 
 and defective eyesight. His deafness was caused in the 
 War of the Rebellion by heavy cannonading. He is a 
 superannuate of some eight or ten years in consequence 
 of these disabilities. He has to use a powerful ear trumpet 
 when in Conference, and runs around to each speaker 
 often to the amusement of lookers-on; but no man can 
 
54 STORY OF MY LIFB. 
 
 give a better account of the status of the business of the 
 body than he, or speak more effectively on any important 
 question under discussion. He is a brother beloved and of 
 good repute. 
 
 Henry Brown, D. D., is one of the oldest men of the 
 Conference, and has been prominent in her councils, hav- 
 ing represented her once in the General Conference. He 
 has been a defender of the polity of our Church on the 
 amusement question, and has published a creditable book 
 on the subject recently. His first term in the Presiding 
 Eldership has just expired. Dr. Brown wields a facile 
 pen. His personality in looks and manners is attractive 
 and unique. He has a fund of humorous anecdotes, some 
 of them side-splitting, and he uses them rather lavishly. 
 He has some ability as a cartoonist, and as has been inti- 
 mated of some others of us, may have missed his calling. 
 This can be said to his great credit, however, he is an 
 inveterate anti-saloon man, and would make a creditable 
 prohibition candidate for governor of some State. 
 
 William B. Carithers, among the oldest men of our 
 body, has recently been translated. He came to this Con- 
 ference in 1884 from the Illinois Conference. He took a 
 superannuated relation about ten years ago, but has been 
 in constant attendance at our sessions until the last, and 
 always took an active part in its business. We greatly 
 miss him, so kind and gentle. His name is like "ointment 
 poured forth." 
 
 John Le Cornu. This brother is of French descent. 
 He is stockily and compactly built; has black, kinky hair, 
 and is about five feet eight inches high, aged about sixty, 
 and of robust health. He has a good voice, with a maga- 
 zine of enthusiasm, and is a superabounding Methodist. 
 He is a No. 1 leader of a prayer-meeting or love-feast, 
 and a good pastor. I do not remember that he ever made 
 a five-minute speech on the Conference floor on any issue 
 before the body, but he is tactful in interjecting remarks 
 on anything that pleases him, either by the brethren or 
 bishop, without making himself offensive or impertinent. 
 As I once heard a minister of a Congregational Church 
 
'ASSOCIATES IN CHRISTIAN WORK. 55 
 
 call a brother minister "a Methodist stove/' so I might 
 say this brother is the Methodist stove of the Columbia 
 River Conference. He is a good committeeman, and is 
 in goood repute. He ought to be effective till he is 
 eighty. 
 
 David E. George, one of the older members of this 
 body, is an eccentric character. He is somewhat tall, and 
 has a head of Websterian dimension. God made but one 
 David E. George, and will probably never repeat Himself. 
 He lays no claim to preaching ability. He has some gift 
 as a revivalist, and quite a little tact. He is eccentric, 
 some may think to a fault. He is utterly unconscious of 
 it until after it has created a laugh. He is unaffected and 
 simple as a child. You can never tell when nor where 
 nor how it will manifest itself, so effervescent is he, and 
 so versatile. His wife, who has lived with him about 
 thirty years, once said to him, "David, will I ever know 
 you?" I doubt if there ever was a Methodist bishop who 
 presided at the Columbia River Conference that did not 
 have his gravity well-nigh upset by this eccentric brother. 
 He is now on the retired list, and keeps sweet and happy. 
 
 Among the other pioneers of this Conference that it 
 has been my privilege to know intimately were D. G. 
 Strong, J. C. Kirkman, William Koonts, N. E. Parsons, 
 Abraham Eads, and T. A. Towner. The younger men 
 who are full of promise I know, and am proud of them 
 and expect great things of them. Columbia River Con- 
 ference is vigorous and progressive, and I rejoice that 
 I have had the privilege of fellowship in labor and toil 
 with them in the Gospel of Christ in this interesting 
 field. 
 
 Two laymen in Washington who have greatly im- 
 pressed me are Father Waltz and Andrew J. Loomis. 
 
 Father Waltz was a man of medium size, black hair, 
 mild countenance, modest, an intelligent Christian, com- 
 panionable, and of generous hospitality. His was one of 
 the beautiful homes where I was often entertained during 
 my Presiding Eldership. This was a model Christian 
 home, the fruits of which are seen in the outcome of the 
 
56 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 children. Two Methodist preachers and two or three 
 daughters, beautiful Christian women, are to-day blessing 
 the world by their talents and Godly example. His name 
 is redolent with a beautiful piety. 
 
 Andrew J. Loomis is a man of six feet and about two 
 inches; raw boned, sandy complexion, sanguine tempera- 
 ment, not good looking, as the phrase is, but goodness 
 personified, which is far better; not unlike Andrew in 
 the Gospel, and like Jeremiah, tender to tears and a most 
 companionable man. His godliness never sours, but is 
 sweet and persuasive ; a most approachable man, and gen- 
 erous to a fault. Twenty-five years ago when we landed 
 in Colfax, Washington, and had just moved into an open 
 parsonage with scant furniture, and the rains were copi- 
 ous, and we had no wood except some green slabs just 
 sawed, a tall, ungainly man came to the door, and asked 
 if the preacher lived there. Being answered in the affirm- 
 ative, he said his name was "Loomis," and remarked that 
 it occurred to him that we might need some wood and 
 flour. We certainly did, and he had come some five miles 
 with dry wood and provisions. They were timely. That 
 man was photographed on my mind and heart, and to me 
 he is one of the best-looking men I have ever known. I 
 have known him intimately all these years, and he has 
 grown on me, and I love him more than a natural brother. 
 I know a large number of people who agree with the esti- 
 mate I now place on him as a man and Christian. I said 
 he is a layman. He is also a lay preacher. I shall know 
 him when the "roll is called up yonder." 
 
 I have it in my heart to mention many other precious 
 names; but my limits in this book will not permit. 
 
 In the last sixty-four years I have seen and heard the 
 following bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church: 
 Waugh, Morris, Baker, Scott, Kingsiey, Simpson, Clark, 
 Hamline, Ames, Janes, Merrill, Wiley, Gilbert Haven, 
 Thomson, Foster, Bowman, Peck, FitzGerald, Andrews, 
 Warren, Foss, Hurst, Fowler, Ninde, Mallalieu, Vincent, 
 Cranston, Goodsell, and Joyce, and the following Mission- 
 ary Bishops: William Taylor, Thoburn, and Hartzell. I 
 
FINIS. 57 
 
 have felt their impress, and thank God for the privilege. 
 Such a life causes one to be a composite, in a sense, of all 
 he has seen and felt. 
 
 The Books that have Influenced and Impressed Me. 
 
 These have been mostly biographical and religious. 
 Hester Ann Rogers, Carvosso, Wesley, Madam Guyon, 
 John Fletcher, Bishop Taylor's "Story of My Life," 
 Bishop Simpson, Frances Willard, and others. But the 
 Bible is the supreme Book of my life. The Bible char- 
 acters who have impressed me most deeply are Abraham, 
 Moses, Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, Elijah, Isaiah, 
 Peter, James, John, and Paul. I think I can say, without 
 extravagant exaggeration, that I have known these per- 
 sons better than many living men whom I have known 
 personally. But more than all these I have known Jesus 
 Christ, the chief among ten thousand, and the "altogether 
 lovely," the only faultless character of our race ! He 
 stands out the transcendent God-man, peerless and unique, 
 without a stain on His beautiful life and character ! It 
 is not idolatry to worship Him and an unblushing sin 
 not to worship Him, who is, as Paul puts it, "The express 
 image of the Father's person," "the only begotten of the 
 Father and well-beloved Son." "Let all the angels wor- 
 ship Him," says St. Paul, setting at rest forever His 
 Divinity. All this I sincerely and firmly believe, and can 
 not be satisfied with a lesser creed. I expect not long 
 hence to awaken in His likeness, and see Him as Peter, 
 James, and John beheld Him on the Mount of Transfigu- 
 ration, or as on the Mount of Ascension when He was 
 parted from His entranced disciples. 
 
 Finis. 
 
 A closing word to the great Methodist Episcopal 
 Church as to her duty towards her superannuates. I 
 began to support myself at the age of twelve, and now 
 in my seventy-ninth year I am preserving the habit of 
 self-support by keeping books and collecting for a black- 
 
5 8 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 smith firm to supplement what I receive from the Super- 
 annuate Fund. I may, as bodily strength decreases, be 
 compelled to do lighter work; but still I hope to work 
 at something. This does not offend my pride, for I have 
 never been ashamed of anything but sin since my conver- 
 sion. But I say this in behalf of my fellow superannuates 
 who are more feeble and dependent than myself, that the 
 Church may be stirred to its obligations to the men and 
 women who have worn themselves out in her service, and 
 as a consequence are left in this delicate plight. We are 
 called "claimants" in the Discipline, and the claim is 
 righteous if any claim is. 
 
 A last word to the many noble laymen and lay women 
 I have known in the half-century recently ended. While 
 in the choice I made in the year 1850 to be a Methodist 
 preacher, and in so doing gave up all hope of a settled 
 home of my own, I have had, without exaggeration, more 
 than a thousand homes open and free to me, as if they 
 had been my own, and many of them better and more 
 costly than I could have hoped for of my own making. 
 A hospitality genuine and as sincere as the sunlight and 
 as free as God's pure air and water. And in many of the 
 humble log cabins I had a royal welcome that I prized 
 more than I can express. I pray God to bless the Meth- 
 odist laity, and help them not to forget the hospitality of 
 early Methodism in America, for this is doubtless an 
 eminent virtue of the Christian religion. 
 
 As I have been giving this biographical sketch of my 
 life I have felt the difficulty of avoiding undue person- 
 ality, which is distasteful to true modesty. But a personal 
 life involves more or less of the egotist. Herbert Spencer 
 in his recent autobiography felt this difficulty, and I think 
 was criticised because of it. A truthful and honest biog- 
 raphy is not possible without it; but it ought to be re- 
 duced to a minimum. George Francis Train allowed his 
 egotism to go to seed until it degenerated into a huge 
 disgust. Some people wonder in reading some autobiog- 
 raphies whether the writer was ever conscious of any 
 faults or blunders in his own life. To be strictly, nay 
 
MRS. SUSAN BEBCHBR TURNER. 59 
 
 severely, honest and truthful most of us will have to plead 
 guilty. I have to. Whether to detail our faults and blun- 
 ders in a strict biography is in good taste is quite ques- 
 tionable; but an admission that our lives are far from 
 faultless, even since we became Christians, may be an 
 honorable and just confession and the truth. If we have 
 confessed our faults and blunders, and have corrected 
 them as far as in us lies, God is faithful and just to for- 
 give and own us as His children. 
 
 MRS. SUSAN BEECHER TURNER. 
 
 A MEMORIAL SKETCH. 
 
 This story of my life would not be true, complete, nor just, without 
 a fuller account of Mrs. Turner's influence on it, of which she was 
 a prominent factor and part. I therefore append the following: 
 
 A brief sketch of the life of Mrs. Susan Beecher 
 Turner, and the circumstances surrounding her death, may 
 be gleaned from the obituary notices published at the time. 
 She died at the farm home in the Saltese Lake Neighbor- 
 hood, near Spokane, May 18, 1900. Her death resulted 
 from heart failure, following a slight attack of illness. 
 She probably passed away in her sleep, having lain down 
 to rest towards the close of the day. The wheels of life 
 simply stopped, and death came without pain, peaceably 
 and ideally. The following verses, which she had cut 
 from a paper and attached to her pin-cushion on the 
 bureau after reading them that day, seem almost pro- 
 phetic as to the manner of her death: 
 
 "Some afternoon, with all my duties done, 
 
 And everything in order set for one more day. 
 Then with the slow declining of the sun, 
 
 I would lie down for aye. 
 Leave all my work for other hands 
 
 To take up and complete, 
 While to the happy morning lands 
 
 I speed my tired feet. 
 
60 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 The path will not be long that I shall go, 
 Nor shall I linger upon the upward way ; 
 
 For warmest welcome waits for me, I know, 
 And joyful endless day. 
 
 So wait I for some summer day- 
 Some sunny afternoon — 
 
 When I shall lay my cares away, 
 My earthly journey done. 
 
 Whatever may befall before that hour — 
 
 Solemn, supreme, the end of earthly strife — 
 
 O Christ ! Thou friend of boundless love and power ; 
 Grant then eternal life. 
 
 And in the last extremity to help when low I lie 
 Be angel guards my company — Christ near — 
 
 So let me die." 
 
 Following are extracts from an obituary notice pub- 
 lished in the Spokane Spokesman-Review : 
 
 "Mrs. Turner had lived a very active and useful life, help- 
 ing her husband greatly in his educational and ministerial 
 work. They came to the Northwest about twenty-five years 
 ago, and lived successively in Colfax, Lewiston, Idaho; and 
 Spokane ; coming to this city in 1885. Since retiring from the 
 active work of the ministry, Mr. Turner and wife have lived 
 on a farm. 
 
 "They are pioneers of the Pacific Coast, having lived on 
 the Western Divide over forty-eight years. They were married 
 in California in 1856, and proceeded to the Hawaiian Islands 
 as missionaries. Later Mrs. Turner assisted her husband as 
 preceptress of Napa Collegiate Institute, California, of which 
 he was president. She was well fitted for this work, having 
 graduated from the State Normal School at Albany, New 
 York, in 1849, and having taught much before and after that 
 date. She also had traveled considerably with her husband in 
 his work as Presiding Elder of the Columbia River Confer- 
 ence, Spokane and Walla Walla Districts. 
 
 "Mrs. Turner was a native of Massachusetts, and a scion 
 of the noted Beecher family. She leaves four children; viz., 
 Principal William B. Turner, of the State Normal School at 
 Cheney; Misses Annie and Ruth Turner, well-known in 
 musical and art circles of this city; and a stepson, Hon. John 
 
MRS. SUSAN BBBCHBR TURNER. 61 
 
 C. Turner, of Colfax, a member of Washington's first House 
 of Representatives, and formerly Auditor of Whitman County. 
 She also leaves a sister, Mrs. Mary E. Potter, of Keuterville, 
 Idaho." 
 
 Following are extracts from a memorial sketch writ- 
 ten by the officiating clergyman, W. K. Beans, D. D., then 
 pastor of the Vincent Methodist Episcopal Church, of 
 Spokane, and published in the Minutes of the Columbia 
 River Conference: 
 
 "Into one of the branches of the Beecher family, in Sandis- 
 field, Berkshire County, Mass., on May 9, 1821, a little girl 
 came to gladden and brighten the home. The welcome mes- 
 senger was christened Susan Eliza. Under excellent religious 
 and educational advantages she grew to womanhood. At the 
 age of twenty-three she was converted. Six years later, in 
 1850, she united with the Methodist Church. In 1856 she was 
 married to William S. Turner. She graduated from the State 
 Normal School at Albany, N. Y., in 1849, having taught several 
 years before that date. Immediately following their marriage 
 in 1856 they went as missionaries to the Sandwich Islands. 
 On their return to California she was preceptress in the Napa 
 Collegiate Institute, of which her husband was principal for 
 six years. She came to this Conference twenty-one years ago 
 to share in the toils and joys of the itinerancy. 
 
 "Her passing away was simply a falling asleep. Not seri- 
 ously indisposed she lay down to rest, and after a while it 
 was discovered that she had passed into the dreamless slum- 
 ber — a quiet, painless, peaceful entry into the splendors of the 
 Heavenly Mansion. 
 
 "Her children" (two grown to man's estate and two in 
 the flush of womanhood) "rise up and call her blessed; her 
 husband also, and he praiseth her." 
 
 "A large gathering of friends and neighbors assembled 
 at the home near Saltese Lake for the funeral service on Sab- 
 bath afternoon, May 19th. The writer preached the funeral 
 sermon from Rev. xxi, 4: 'And God shall wipe away all tears 
 from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sor- 
 row nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain, for the 
 former things have passed away.' 
 
 "Her Sunday-school class was present, bearing testimony 
 
62 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 to the loss of a faithful and loving teacher. Embowered in 
 the sweet blossoms of spring, 
 
 " 'Emblems of our own great resurrection, 
 Emblems of the bright and better land/ 
 
 she peacefully lay; behind her the happy years of useful toil; 
 
 before her the crown and palm; where age never weakens, 
 
 where tears never dim the eyes, where sickness never comes, 
 
 where death is unknown, where farewells are never spoken, 
 
 where 
 
 " 'Breezes ever fresh with Love and Truth 
 
 Brace the frame with an immortal youth.' 
 
 In the peaceful hush of the Sabbath afternoon, 
 
 On a sun-kissed knoll, fringed with the perennial 
 
 Beauty of pine trees, we laid her away to rest. 
 
 Softly within that quiet resting-place 
 
 We laid her weary frame, 
 
 And bade the clay press lightly on her, 
 
 Till the night be past. 
 
 And then Far East gives note of rising day, 
 
 The day of reappearing how it speeds ! 
 
 He who is true and faithful speaks the word. 
 
 Then shall we be with those we love. 
 
 Then shall we be forever with the Lord. 
 
 W. K. Beans. 
 
9fa.</. 
 
 ■4^ 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 INDUSTRY THE ROAD TO SUCCESS. 
 
 Prize Essay, 1849. 
 
 Industry, like most of man's commendable traits, is 
 almost, if not entirely, acquired. Upon a strict examina- 
 tion of his character, it will be found that he is made up 
 of acquirements to a very great extent. However, his 
 Creator has been very benevolent in furnishing him with a 
 vigorous constitution and an active intellect. A constitu- 
 tion which, if prudently used, is proof against the severest 
 assaults, and a mind which can not be easily circumscribed. 
 What is the inference to be drawn from these two facts? 
 The most reasonable conclusion that can be arrived at is, 
 that they were formed for habits of industry. Those well- 
 developed muscles, those limbs so wisely arranged, and 
 that mercurial mind fully warrant the above assertion. It 
 would be placing a stigma upon the character of man's 
 great Architect, to suppose that He made a work so noble 
 to remain in a state of inactivity. It was given for high 
 and noble purposes, and its exercise is indispensable to 
 the accomplishment of those purposes. If we would suc- 
 ceed in any enterprise, however small or important it may 
 be, industry will mold our characters so far as success 
 extends, and that will be proportionate with our exertions. 
 There is an illimitable space where the mind may range 
 without molestation, and an extensive field of action for 
 the physical system to display its powers. The exercise 
 of the body and mind is the source from which all have 
 derived their greatness and renown. As industry is neces- 
 sary to insure success, so its opposite will inevitably blast 
 the brightest expectations of man. Indolence renders an 
 individual a mere cipher in this world of activity and ex- 
 
 63 
 
64 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 citement. As that cipher placed to the left of a decimal 
 diminishes its value, so the example of an indolent world 
 detracts much from the nobility of labor. Such an ex- 
 ample has its weight upon that propensity, which is so 
 natural to all to pass the time in ease. This disposition 
 seems to be generally inherent in mankind, where it has 
 not been overcome by habits of industry. Exceptions there 
 may be, but the probability is that they are quite rare. 
 In more modern times the opinion has gained some celeb- 
 rity, that it is dishonorable to labor, especially in the 
 manual sense of that term. It is to be lamented that this 
 opinion is gaining strength from a source from which it 
 should be least expected. There are two ways in partic- 
 ular in which this opinion is encouraged. 
 
 In the first place, we encourage it too much by our 
 personal example. How many hours are suffered to pass 
 away without either manual or mental employment ! Many 
 have wasted time which, if it had been properly applied, 
 would have placed them in an enviable condition so far as 
 it regards pecuniary advantages, and in a still more envi- 
 able position as it regards the endowments of knowledge. 
 The time idled away by hundreds and thousands, had they 
 the control of it again, would be sufficient to insure them 
 at least a respectable knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and 
 Hebrew languages. In the second place, we encourage 
 this opinion by our silence, thereby tacitly acknowledging 
 that it is not honorable to labor with the hand. It would 
 appear from this silence that far the greater part labor, 
 because necessity demands it at their hands, and not from 
 any honor they consider connected with or belonging to 
 labor. It is infinitely more dishonorable to promulgate 
 such an opinion in any way whatever, than it is to earn 
 our bread by the sweat of our brow. Who are to blame 
 for the prevalence of this opinion? The fathers and 
 mothers of our land are more culpable than any other 
 class of persons for this state of things. Individuals 
 brought up to habits of industry are not apt to forget that 
 training when they arrive at years of maturity. Such is 
 the force of habit, that they are never contented when 
 
INDUSTRY THE ROAD TO SUCCESS. 65 
 
 unemployed. A life of activity scarcely ever fails to afford 
 a life of contentment. Activity is the proper theater of the 
 mind, and when the body and mind are actively engaged 
 the latter feels at home. As it is necessary that the mind 
 should have some relaxation from toil, this can be done 
 with pleasure and profit by the exercise of the body. 
 There are, it is true, some active occupations in which 
 it is impossible for men to be happy, because they are 
 directly at war with their consciences. The pursuits 
 which claim man's attention are so numerous and praise- 
 worthy, that there is no reason why he should forsake an 
 honorable for a dishonorable one, or choose a debasing 
 one, when there are so many that are laudable. What 
 think you would be the progress of the social condition, 
 were the principle of universal industry adopted and car- 
 ried out? Such expressions as "loafers' corner" and "dog- 
 geries," with many others, would become obsolete terms 
 for want of occasions to use them. All places of useless 
 amusement, and other means of killing time as they are 
 called, would be abandoned, and, instead of murdering 
 time, men would have inducements to use all their ener- 
 gies to redeem it. Many vices which are a curse to the 
 human family would be blotted out of existence; such as 
 drunkenness, gambling of every species, theft, murder, 
 and all the evils which follow in their train. There would 
 not be laid so many heavy taxes upon our States and 
 counties for building receptacles for the confinement of 
 culprits, as their number would be so greatly diminished. 
 This fact has been fully exemplified by the Puritans of 
 New England. It is said by their best historian that such 
 things as locks and keys and prisons among them as a 
 people were not needed. This happy state of things was 
 owing, in a great degree, to their very strict habits of 
 industry. It is an established fact that all the cases of 
 theft and murder are generally attributed (and correctly 
 too) to that class of individuals denominated loafers, and 
 not to the industrious classes of community. Some there 
 are, however, who argue that we live in an age of high 
 attainments and refinements. Therefore we should not 
 5 
 
66 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 model after the customs of those who have lived in the 
 darker periods of the world. In some respects this prin- 
 ciple may be allowable, but by no means should it be an 
 established rule. High and ennobling objects should be 
 imitated and respected wherever they may be found. 
 Happy would it be for many of our day did they but imi- 
 tate the example of the Pilgrim Fathers in this respect; 
 that is, their love of industry. Some are ready to say that 
 it would bring society upon an equality. This it would 
 most undoubtedly do, and it is the very best reason that 
 could be offered why it should be imitated. Is not one in- 
 dividual as good as another just so far as his or her con- 
 duct comports with the principles of good breeding and 
 honesty? Aside from strict piety, he or she certainly is. 
 The example of Peter the Great of Russia is worthy the 
 imitation of all, whatever their position may be in the 
 world. He did not think it beneath his dignity to lay aside 
 the purple, and come down from the throne to become a 
 ship carpenter, thereby showing that it is no ignoble thing 
 to labor. He was not ashamed to be seen mingling with 
 the yeomanry and tradesmen of his own and the govern- 
 ments of other potentates of the land. His influence, 
 nevertheless, was felt among the high and the low, by the 
 intellectual as well as by the illiterate. He had a proper 
 view of what society should be, and employed the requisite 
 means for the accomplishment of that object, by first set- 
 ting the example. 
 
 The adaptedness of industry to success in all the avo- 
 cations of life is very evident, and has been fully demon- 
 strated by the experience of all who have made any display 
 on the great theater of life. It is as necessary to insure 
 success, as is the light to the healthy growth of vegeta- 
 tion. When the labor of the mind and body ceases, then 
 will all human greatness have an end. Individuals may 
 sometimes be left in prosperous circumstances by the 
 labors of others, yet what will all this profit them without 
 a prudent use of them? Nothing, unless it be their ruin- 
 ation. So it is in a literary point of view we have the 
 labors of the great minds of the past; but in order that 
 
INDUSTRY THE ROAD TO SUCCESS. 67 
 
 they may be of some practical benefit to us, we must 
 understand them for ourselves; another can not for us. 
 The examples which illustrate this position are sufficient 
 to fill a volume. Demosthenes acquired his undying fame 
 by a life of activity. His prospects in early life were any- 
 thing but flattering. A deformed person, an impediment 
 of speech, and poverty were the highest apparent recom- 
 mendations he had to renown. But labor and persever- 
 ance, like "the alchemy which turns everything it touches 
 into gold," made from that combination of imperfection 
 the brightest gem in the crown of Grecian orators. Co- 
 pernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton by their active in- 
 dustry have left an enduring remembrance of their acts 
 worthy the admiration of every enterprising individual. 
 What would be the condition of the scientific world with- 
 out their discoveries? Instead of occupying the exalted 
 situation that she now does, we would behold her sitting 
 enshrouded by the ignorance and superstition of the fif- 
 teenth and sixteenth centuries. Galileo discovered new 
 worlds and the means of bringing them within the range 
 of our vision, but it was left for Newton to explain the 
 laws by which they are kept in motion. Although much 
 of Newton's greatness, and of that which would have been 
 valuable in the arts and sciences, have been partially lost 
 by his mischievous "Diamond;" yet there is still enough 
 left to entwine a wreath around his brow, which will be 
 ever green while science and literature shall flourish. 
 How did Erasmus, Sir William Jones, and Adam Clarke 
 become so eminent as linguists? Was it by the common 
 efforts put forth by the generality of men, or was it not 
 by all of their energies united with severe application? 
 The latter most assuredly, or Jones could never have be- 
 come acquainted with twenty-eight languages, many of 
 which he could converse in, and none of that number but 
 he could master with the Lexicon ; yet the greater part of 
 his life was taken up in his profession and writing on 
 various subjects which are known and read with interest. 
 This is fully as true of Clarke as of Jones. He was prob- 
 ably acquainted with upwards of twenty languages which 
 
68 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 were analyzed by him with as much apparent ease as his 
 mother tongue. In addition to all this he preached some 
 thousands of sermons, wrote a Commentary to the entire 
 Bible, and other theological works. This was the indi- 
 vidual who in his school days was considered below the 
 mediocrity of his schoolmates in point of intellect, yet 
 by a life of industry he became the most learned man of 
 England in his day. We have another monument in our 
 own country of what industry can accomplish. This is 
 the learned blacksmith of New England. His industry 
 and prudent use of time have acquired for him a knowl- 
 edge of upwards of fifty languages. Is it not astonishing 
 that he could work at his occupation, and yet arrive at a 
 position so desirable in learning? Let all adopt his man- 
 ner of improving time, and they can not fail of surpassing 
 their own expectations, should they not accomplish one- 
 fourth of what he did. Let an indolent world examine the 
 history of Bacon and Eocke, and show, if they can, 
 whether their gigantic intellects were the result of a life 
 of study and application ; or do they suppose for a moment 
 that their names would have occupied the exalted position 
 they now do, had they not been hard students all their 
 lives? Their literary works are the mirrors in which may 
 be seen the true characters of their minds and the evi- 
 dences of their untiring labors. Harvey has left a monu- 
 ment which will always be as a waymark pointing to the 
 goal of fame, with the inscription on it that "Industry is 
 the only sure road to success." Matthew Hale and Wil- 
 berforce, the benefactors of their race, gained that title 
 by no other means than by a life of unremitting labor. It 
 may be said their philanthropy secured for them that high 
 meed of praise which so richly clusters around their 
 names. This no doubt had something to do with their 
 renown; but divest them of their active lives, and all the 
 benevolence they possessed would be as unworthy of that 
 appellation, as is the merest idler you can portray to your 
 minds. It is a thought which had its birth in the mind 
 of a great writer, "that there can be no true nobility 
 without labor." It is of little importance how ennobling 
 
INDUSTRY THE ROAD TO SUCCESS. 69 
 
 the qualities of an individual are, if they are suffered to 
 be confined within the narrow limits of his or her heart 
 without exercising them so as to benefit others. They 
 will grow languid and offensive for want of employment. 
 In fact, they will degenerate until they are converted into 
 degraded, instead of noble qualities. There is nothing of 
 any value which is not applied to some useful purpose, 
 let it be ever so valuable in itself. A piece of gold is of 
 no more value to a small child than a piece of iron, for it 
 is only beneficial as a toy and a piece of iron will amuse 
 the child as much as a piece of gold. So it is with noble 
 qualities in individuals who do not use them. Indolent 
 persons are of no more advantage to the world than so 
 many lifeless statues, for they only consume that which 
 rightly belongs to those who have been unfortunate, and 
 are no longer able to labor. Franklin's example has come 
 down to posterity freighted with illustrious deeds. His 
 discoveries and luminous writings savor much of a life 
 of labor and severe toil. He could spend a large portion 
 of his life in the service of his country, and then by a 
 prudent use of the scraps of his life gain enough, 
 exclusive of his ministerial labors, to immortalize his 
 name. Had he been reared by parents who, like many of 
 our day, suppose it a dishonorable thing to labor, in all 
 probability the discovery of electricity would have been 
 the theme of praise to some other one. America, too, at 
 that critical period of her advancement might have suf- 
 fered materially for want of a Franklin to defend her 
 rights, who was as firm and uncompromising in the cause 
 of liberty, as he was wise and honest. Such men as 
 Washington, Jefferson, and John Q. Adams, had they 
 not been living models of industry, in vain would we look 
 for that halo of glory which surrounds their names. What 
 country or nation would not be proud of such erudites 
 as they ? Ah ! proud America, those were they who have 
 given the brightest luster to thy name. Let it ever be thy 
 greatest delight and care to preserve what they through 
 a long life of toil have conferred upon thee ! No one of 
 our statesmen deserves to be revered more for what he 
 
70 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 has done for the establishing of republican principles 
 than John Q. Adams. Upwards of sixty years he was an 
 active servant for the American people. What an example 
 of honesty, uprightness of character, and rigid industry 
 for the young statesman, let his political opinions be what 
 they may ! Almost his last breath and his last act was 
 employed for the good of his country. It may be said of 
 him, as it has been said of another benefactor of mankind, 
 that he "died at his post." The ship of State never had 
 a more successful pilot than Adams. So dearly was he 
 attached to her interests, that he did not forsake her to 
 breathe out the few remaining hours of his life in the 
 quiet of the domestic circle, but died upon the deck with 
 the rudder in his hand. 
 
 The error so prevalent in the world at the present time 
 that God confers upon one individual talents of a high 
 order, while seemingly He passes others by, would have 
 but little foundation did all have the same early intellectual 
 training and the same advantages during life. The senti- 
 ment in the following lines is strictly true : 
 
 " 'T is education forms the common mind, 
 Just as the twig is bent the tree 's inclined." 
 
 It would seem from the above that defective education 
 is the principal cause of the apparent difference of men's 
 mental capacities, and it is not to be attributed to any very 
 great difference there may be in the original condition of 
 the mind. Mind is a progressive principle, and by appli- 
 cation and perseverance it may be made to surpass all 
 human expectation. If it were possible to confine two 
 persons from their infancy in a comparatively secluded 
 condition for a specified period, where they should receive 
 precisely the same training, we have just grounds to con- 
 clude that one would not excel the other in superiority 
 of intellect. The great difference between the capacities 
 of different individuals may be accounted for upon reason- 
 able principles. If we will take the trouble to observe men 
 and things, we will see that the circumstances under which 
 men are placed differ widely in their characters, and their 
 
INDUSTRY THE ROAD TO SUCCESS. 71 
 
 minds will differ just as they are influenced by physical 
 or other causes. One correct step in the commencement 
 of any undertaking may set in motion a train of events 
 which lead to greatness and renown, while a misstep may 
 place obstructions in the way, which nothing but the most 
 unyielding perseverance will be able to surmount. Small 
 things frequently bring about the most important results. 
 Then can we wonder at the great variety of talent we 
 witness? Probably it would be taking too high a ground 
 to say that there is no difference whatever in the strength 
 of different minds in their original state, but with safety 
 it may be asserted that the difference falls very far short 
 of what it is represented to be by far the greater portion 
 of the world. There have been many towering intellects 
 which have rusted and lain torpid beneath the rubbish of 
 ignorance and superstition merely for want of proper culti- 
 vation and exercise. As some of the most brilliant gems 
 lie hid in nature and only need the hand of the artist to 
 show their hidden beauty, so it has ever been and still is 
 with the human mind. Let education do its office upon 
 such minds, and their brilliancy and excellence will be as 
 astonishing as any that ever have been admired or eulo- 
 gized. Excellence is the offspring of labor, both mental 
 and physical. There may be labor without excellence in 
 every sense of that term, but there can be no excellence 
 without labor. For example, such men as Voltaire, Hume, 
 and Paine gained all their learning by their mental exer- 
 tions, yet their excellence was confined to or existed 
 merely in their being learned. As it regards moral excel- 
 lence, they were as devoid of that as was the fig-tree which 
 was cursed for its barrenness. It would be impossible 
 for an individual to spend a long and laborious life in the 
 acquirement of knowledge, and yet not arrive at excel- 
 lence of some kind, because it is a necessary result of 
 labor. It is a principle of philosophy, that there can not 
 be an effect without a cause. On the same parity of 
 reasoning a cause can not be employed without produc- 
 ing some effect. In order, then, that industry may produce 
 its designed effect upon the character of man, it is neces- 
 
72 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 sary that his labors be confined to objects effecting the 
 social, intellectual, and moral conditions of mankind, and 
 not to satisfying his own corrupt ambition, which fre- 
 quently induces him to exert all his intellectual and other 
 powers for the annihilation of morality and religion. 
 Should such a view of what industry can accomplish be 
 a correct one, where are the parents who would not use 
 all their exertions to enforce its truth upon the minds of 
 their children, and show their utter disapprobation of an 
 opinion which is antagonistic to labor, then to all who 
 have understanding, the admonition of the Wise Man 
 upon this subject is the very best that could be offered, 
 "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might." 
 
 VIRTUE THE GUARDIAN OF NATIONS. 
 
 Oration and Welcome Address to the Orator of the Philisonlan 
 
 Society. 
 
 [This was the oration that called forth the remark of the President of 
 the L,aw School of Indiana, that I was making a great mistake in being 
 a minister, and that I ought to be a lawyer.] 
 
 Virtue being an abstract principle, will not admit of 
 a definition. It is a word which in the course of time has 
 acquired new significations, arising from its application 
 to certain acts which mankind, either from personal no- 
 tions, or from what is truly ennobling and elevating, have 
 endeavored to immortalize. Some of the ancients under- 
 stood by the term that we now call valor, courage or 
 bravery. Such was the importance they attached to this 
 principle, that all virtues were by them finally deified. 
 Marcellus, a distinguished Roman, erected two temples 
 in his day — one to Virtue, and another to Honor. These 
 were so arranged that it was impossible for any one to 
 get into the temple of Honor until he had passed through 
 the temple of Virtue. The allegory is no less true than 
 happy — it is equally applicable to the notions which 
 heathen and Christian nations hold respecting virtue. 
 When the Spartan mothers presented to their sons their 
 weapons of warfare, with the impartive charge not to re- 
 
VIRTUE THE GUARDIAN OF NATIONS. 73 
 
 turn from the contest without bringing their shields with 
 them, they supposed they were inculcating in the bosoms 
 of their democratic children the highest and most en- 
 nobling attribute of the human soul. Neither did the edu- 
 cation thus imparted fail to accomplish what had been so 
 fondly pictured by their imaginations. It was in a word 
 to them the "magnum bonutn" of all their desires. It may 
 be thought that the amount of human misery produced by 
 their high estimate of valor exceeded the sum of happi- 
 ness arising therefrom. Whether this be true or not one 
 thing is very evident, they did not thus judge concerning 
 virtue. They felt satisfied that she had amply rewarded 
 them for all their toil and care in nourishing this to them 
 so invaluable principle. There can be no doubt but that 
 the love of liberty for which the Spartans and other 
 nations of antiquity were characterized was intimately 
 connected with what they understood by the term virtue. 
 The inference then clearly is ; and history fully establishes 
 the conclusion that they considered valor the guardian of 
 their liberties. We have then derived our understanding 
 of virtue from the foregoing view, but we hope we place 
 an estimate as much superior to that which heathen 
 nations placed upon it, as our opportunities and light 
 surpass theirs. 
 
 But the question may arise here, What are its relations 
 to nations and States ? The investigation of this question 
 might well, and unquestionably should, enlist the minds 
 of the profoundest philosophers and statesmen. To deter- 
 mine the exact relations between this principle and States 
 is doubtless of paramount importance to all governments, 
 but especially to those that are democratic in their forms. 
 So intimate are the relations between virtue and govern- 
 ments, that nearly six thousand years have conclusively 
 demonstrated that the perpetuity and prosperity of the one 
 had been proportionate to the happy blending and vitality 
 of the other, and the practical respect the agents of gov- 
 ernments have paid to these relations. But the greatest 
 intellects are not the only ones that are capable of recog- 
 nizing these important relations ; the more superficial mind 
 
74 STORY OF MY LIFB. 
 
 may with considerable clearness perceive these relations, 
 though not with the same distinctness and comprehension. 
 These relations will be more apparent if we but take a 
 cursory view of the rise, progress, and overthrow of some 
 of the important nations in the Old World. If we com- 
 mence with Egypt, which was the mother of the Arts and 
 Sciences, and boasted at one time her twenty thousand 
 cities, we will see the utter impossibility of a nation pros- 
 pering any great length of time, whatever may be its lit- 
 erary, scientific, and physical advantages, when virtue 
 has been disregarded and even repulsed from the precincts 
 of society. Because virtue did not occupy its merited 
 place among them, she has long since become a blank 
 among the nations of the earth. The Medes and Persians 
 were equally as destitute of this saving principle as were 
 the nations of Africa. Though the Persian Empire was 
 extensive and powerful, both as regards wealth and 
 numbers, yet the dissolute habits and wickedness of its 
 citizens soon brought her under the superior valor of the 
 Macedonians. In like manner Greece also degenerated 
 in her love of liberty and physical power, in proportion as 
 she lost sight of virtuous principles. When her States 
 threw themselves into internal commotions and wars, she 
 virtually gave herself up to be crushed by the barbarity 
 of iron-footed Rome. The longevity of this government 
 and her advancement in literature and the fine arts, were 
 the results of the love of liberty and the moral virtues of 
 her citizens. 
 
 Next Rome makes herself the proud mistress of the 
 world, then gives free course to all the corruptions of 
 fallen human nature and becomes her own destroyer. Let 
 her own Neros, Syllas, and Caligulas tell of some of the 
 outrages committed on virtue, and then you will have a 
 faint idea of the political degeneracy and wanton profli- 
 gacy of many of her citizens. Probably it was some such 
 a view as this that caused the great Roman orator to 
 exclaim, "O tempora ! O mores !" If we trace the history 
 of Great Britain, we will see that her civil progress and 
 advancement in literature have been proportionate to her 
 
VIRTUE THE GUARDIAN OF NATIONS. 75 
 
 adherence to virtuous principles. Her history is no doubt 
 truthful, where it says that her dark spots and the out- 
 breaking cruelties of many of her kings and nobles hap- 
 pened in those periods when virtue was almost an entire 
 stranger within her borders. England's present enviable 
 position as regards wealth and learning is owing to the 
 fact that Virtue's broad shield has been protecting her for 
 the last two hundred years. It is not to be understood 
 from this remark that the opposite of virtue has no place 
 among that people, for that place where virtue is sole 
 occupant may not be found. The many revolutions in 
 France, the unrivaled persecutions, the Reign of Terror, 
 and the unequaled wickedness and profligacy of the masses 
 of the people there loudly declare the almost entire absence 
 of virtuous principles. Would it be too much to say that 
 France might have been at the present one of the greatest 
 republics in existence had she united with her widespread 
 intelligence a high tone of pure religion or virtue? We 
 think not. But listen to her magistrates, assembly men, 
 and leaders in the Revolution making a proclamation that 
 there is no God but Reason, and even challenging the 
 Great I Am to a contest with them ! Knowledge by all 
 must be considered a great blessing when associated with 
 virtue, but will only make men and nations the embodi- 
 ments of all evil when it is entirely disjoined from virtue. 
 Let the whole world arrive at the highest possible position 
 of intelligence you can conceive of, and banish virtue from 
 the world, then could you gain some eminence where 
 you could view their transactions with one another, you 
 would behold a scene that would make you think that the 
 inhabitants of Tartarus had taken up a temporary abode 
 on earth. Better leave the world in total ignorance and 
 heathenism, than enlighten them without Christianizing 
 them. If this hasty view of the most important nations 
 is a correct one, there is manifestly an important relation 
 existing between virtue and nations, and tlie most super- 
 ficial observer must see that relation. 
 
 This leads us to notice some of the most marked abuses 
 of virtue, and the consequences that have and will follow 
 
?6 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 such abuses. Our remarks upon this portion of our sub- 
 ject will be confined more exclusively to republican forms 
 of government, as it is evident that other forms of govern- 
 ment can better dispense with virtue than those based on 
 democratic principles. Therefore this leading proposition 
 may be laid down, that no government can long exist 
 where the people are the fountain of all power, without 
 a strict attention to the intellectual and moral education 
 of those composing such government. This proposition 
 has been too clearly demonstrated by able writers, upon 
 the relations existing between virtue and civil society, to 
 require from us any arguments to substantiate it, other 
 than those we have already given in our previous remarks 
 on their relations. As an example of the abuse of virtue 
 we may cite your attention to the Carthaginian Republic, 
 noted for its mercantile advantages, its advancements 
 in agriculture, and its scientific and literary advancement 
 at different periods of its history, all which things are to 
 be taken into consideration in judging of the power and 
 civilization of a people. What were the causes of her 
 downfall? Let the voice of history speak. Oppressive 
 laws, corrupt rulers, inordinate desire of conquest, and 
 hostile factions within her own bosom. All these things 
 but too surely declare the absence of virtue, or at least 
 that that element which is the great bulwark of a popular 
 government had but a feeble and inefficient existence. We 
 may adduce one more example from the ancient republics 
 to establish this point. As the Roman Government was 
 the most prominent of all the republics of antiquity, our 
 attention may be directed to it for a moment. What was 
 her reputation and power? The record of her fame has 
 employed the pens of many able writers, and her deeds 
 are on the tongue of nearly every schoolboy and collegian 
 of this and other lands. After enjoying the advantages of 
 a democratic government for several hundred years, dur- 
 ing which time she acquired almost unlimited territory and 
 power, she suffered corruption and vice to insinuate them- 
 selves into her institutions, so that the declaration of one 
 of her most renowned poets was literally fulfilled in her 
 
VIRTUE THE GUARDIAN OF NATIONS. 77 
 
 own case, that "Power not directed by wisdom falls by its 
 own weight." Such being the state of affairs, the people, 
 at the instance of designing men (who it seems are never 
 wanting), were influenced to change their form of gov- 
 ernment somewhat. The provinces of the republic were 
 divided among triumvirs, who soon became exceedingly 
 jealous of each other. Pompey and Caesar had their re- 
 spective friends, who were willing to follow them to the 
 field of carnage, and pour out their life's blood to augment 
 their power. The hatred between these two aspirants 
 became so violent, that Caesar broke the league and passed 
 the Rubicon and Roman freedom expired. Internal dis- 
 sensions, intemperance, ambitious leaders, love of con- 
 quest, and corrupt laws were, we see, the leading causes 
 of another republic's fate. Though intelligence, all things 
 considered, was pretty generally disseminated, yet she did 
 not possess sufficient virtue among her citizens, and espe- 
 cially among her rulers, to protect the rights of her people. 
 Tacitus, one of her most honored historians, has said : "It 
 is much easier to praise than to establish a republican gov- 
 ernment; and when it is established, it can not be of long 
 duration." In his day, when they had not learned the 
 intimate relation existing between virtuous principles and 
 popular government, this declaration was no doubt true. 
 It might prove a very difficult undertaking to convince 
 the American people that when such a form of government 
 "is established," that "it can not be of long duration;" 
 yet this declaration is as true as that Rome and Carthage 
 have fallen, if you attempt to maintain them without a 
 rigid adherence to virtuous principles. Had Rome pos- 
 sessed more such men as Regulus, who were willing to 
 become martyrs for the truth, she might have stood till 
 this day, the proudest monument of democracy in the 
 world and the literary model of all lands ! But how is 
 the mighty fallen and all her glory departed ! And all this 
 for her disregard of virtue ! The dirge of her misfortune 
 has long since been written, and has carried to the heart 
 of many a lover of freedom a pang of sorrow while read- 
 ing of the unfortunate struggle between a virtuous minor- 
 
7 8 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 ity and a vicious and unbridled majority for the liberty 
 of the Seven-hilled City ! 
 
 This very naturally brings us to the pleasing and yet 
 painful task of noticing the successful attempt in estab- 
 lishing American freedom. We say pleasing, because the 
 attempt has proved successful ; but painful, because we so 
 often see fearful omens indicating an evil result of this 
 great experiment. As has already been said, it is much 
 easier to praise than establish a republican government; 
 but unless virtue has the ascendency in such government, 
 it will be much more difficult to maintain than even to 
 establish one. But asks one lulled to rest in the arms of a 
 false security, "What are those fearful omens?" Have 
 you not heard the cry of "Disunion" which has been car- 
 ried with lightning's speed throughout the length and 
 breadth of Freedom's home ! Nothing of the heated dis- 
 cussions at the Capitol, nothing of the excitement concern- 
 ing the "Fugitive Slave Law" that has exasperated so 
 many Americans ! Ah ! there are causes for fear ! — 
 weighty interests that should arouse every slumbering 
 American to activity — to duty ! Let it never be said that 
 this most successful attempt at self-government has also 
 failed from want of enough virtue to prop and sustain this 
 mighty fabric. Just mark the spirit that is abroad in this 
 Government with reference to filling offices and posts of 
 responsibility. It is with the greatest difficulty that we 
 can get men of genuine virtue and high intellectual ac- 
 quirements to announce themselves as candidates for any 
 office, since they must endure all the scandal and opprobri- 
 ous epithets that a corrupt, self-sufficient, and intriguing 
 opponent may lavish upon their untarnished characters; 
 they would rather remain at home in the embrace of a 
 kind and interesting family, than launch forth upon the 
 sea of political strife. What is the reason of this state of 
 things ? It is because we have been supporting vagabonds, 
 instead of men of virtue and acknowledged mental ability. 
 So long as you support men of corrupt morals in prefer- 
 ence to men of moral integrity, you may reasonably ex- 
 pect corrupt laws, for corrupt fountains can send forth 
 
VIRTUE THE GUARDIAN OF NATIONS. 79 
 
 none but corrupt waters. "Tell it not in Gath, publish it 
 not in the streets of Askelon," that there are no fears to 
 be entertained for the perpetuity of our Federal Govern- 
 ment while the majority of our statesmen are wicked, in- 
 temperate, and abandoned men. Americans do not gener- 
 ally know whom they have placed at the head of their 
 civil affairs ! Ah ! could you but once draw the curtain 
 aside that conceals from your view the nocturnal carous- 
 ings of members of Congress, the visitings of coffee- 
 houses, the gambling that is daily practiced there, and 
 other licentious proceedings, you will then see many just 
 causes of alarm ! We are aware this course is not the one 
 that is commonly pursued by young tyros in speaking of 
 the great men of this Nation, yet we should aim at truth 
 first, then eulogize. We are happy, yea proud, to say we 
 have a few exceptions, a few men in our Government 
 who are above suspicion in such matters; but alas! how 
 few they are ! What an interesting spectacle it must be 
 to look upon such a body of men as annually meet at the 
 Capital of these Confederate States to see the interests of 
 the same with the reflection that the majority of these 
 same men are immoral, intemperate, and practiced gam- 
 blers; yea, many of them think they can not even make a 
 speech on any great national question without the stimu- 
 lus produced by ardent spirits. Many of our laws are 
 the offsprings of reeling brains. Think not that this is an 
 exaggerated picture; it is lamentably true. Draw a com- 
 parison between the first Congress and those of late years, 
 and report the advancement that has been made in moral- 
 ity and virtue. Instead of a God-fearing, pious set of 
 Congressmen as characterized that memorable body, we 
 have advanced so far in the scale of moral excellence that 
 we can now boast of men who pride themselves on the 
 amount of rum they can daily drink, and yet stand at the 
 helm of the Ship of State and preserve their equilibrium. 
 Yes, they have so rapidly advanced in the science of gov- 
 ernment that many of them think it necessary neither to 
 invoke the favor of Heaven themselves, or to have a chap- 
 lain to perform this important duty for them. But our 
 
80 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 forefathers did not even dare to legislate for the infant 
 Republic without first devoutly craving the direction of 
 the God of nations. What has been said of officers of the 
 General Government will hold good to an alarming extent 
 of State officers. To a candid observer it must be evident 
 that the actions of many — very many — of our politicians 
 clearly evince that the liberty and perpetuity of our re- 
 vered Government and institutions are but matters of 
 secondary importance with them. They make the public 
 crib their god, and their constituents their tools and play- 
 things. If they are suffered to control the affairs of this 
 Government much longer they will sink it, probably to rise 
 no more forever. A man of the French Government, who 
 spent some time in this country and who has written a 
 large work on American democracy, has given it as a 
 result of his extensive observation that the talent of the 
 Congress of the United States is greatly inferior to that 
 of many men in the Government who are debarred from 
 that high position. There is need of a revolution in this 
 respect in our country. Our best men should have charge 
 of our governmental affairs, and many of the present 
 office-seekers discountenanced entirely. If this Republic 
 meets with the common fate of popular governments, these 
 we prophesy will be the two leading causes of such fate: 
 viz., wicked rulers and the system of human slavery which 
 we are cherishing in the very lap of liberty. Who knows 
 but it is the viper that will one day infuse its poison 
 throughout the veins and vitals of this Republic? Alas! 
 for the generation that shall witness that day when the 
 columns of this Confederacy shall give way, and the un- 
 supported fabric of dismembered States shall grind to 
 powder the remains of all that was great and ennobling. 
 Such is a faint yet true picture of what has been pre- 
 figured in the political horizon of America during the 
 last two or three years. We may here with propriety ask 
 the question that Horace once asked, "What can idle laws 
 do without morals?" But there can be no general virtue 
 where there is no individual virtue, consequently no civil 
 freedom. Whatever then tends to lessen individual virtue 
 
VIRTUE THE GUARDIAN OF NATIONS. 81 
 
 strikes a fatal blow at the very foundations of liberty. O ! 
 that we could see our Congress halls and Legislatures 
 filled with men who would battle with error and incon- 
 sistency, as did the Father of his Country, John Q. Adams, 
 and Wilberforce. Then might we truly and enthusiastic- 
 ally boast of our free institutions and self-government; 
 but until this is the case our boasting will be vain babbling 
 and will only excite the ridicule of foreign Powers who do 
 not boast so much about their liberty as we do, but are 
 far more consistent. The claims this Government has 
 upon each of us are weighty and binding. The great in- 
 quiry with every true American should be, How can I best 
 subserve the interests of my country and give my influ- 
 ence to preserve her States "many in one?" We answer 
 by putting our best men into the law-making department, 
 and as soon as it is practicable to remove the unfortunate 
 African to his former home. Let virtue be the standard 
 around which Americans shall ever rally, and this Repub- 
 lic shall have announced to an astonished world that Time 
 shall be no more. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Philisonian Society, I deeply feel 
 the weight of the responsibilty growing out of the position 
 to which you have elevated me on this memorable occasion. 
 I am almost at a loss to know what would be the most 
 appropriate point to touch upon connected with the inter- 
 est of our society at this time. But since your object is 
 to maintain right, reward merit, and promote virtue, an 
 application of the principle we have discussed this evening 
 may be both pertinent and appropriate. There are not 
 only relations existing between virtue and great political 
 compacts, but there are intimate relations also existing 
 among smaller bodies such as our own in a proportionate 
 degree. Gentlemen, if you would successfully carry for- 
 ward those exalted principles of right, the rewarding of 
 merit, and the promotion of virtuous actions, you must 
 make virtue with all it means the guardian of your order, 
 and never enter upon any scheme or undertaking without 
 consulting her for direction. What a loud call and press- 
 ing demand there is in the American Republic for men of 
 6 
 
82 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 genuine virtue and high moral integrity, men who will 
 maintain our free institutions and bring about some great 
 moral reforms in the political condition of our country ! 
 We very much stand in need of a recruit of such men as 
 Washington and Old Man Eloquent and the lamented 
 Taylor. We have many truly virtuous men. Whatever 
 may be the position you may fill in life, give all your in- 
 fluence in favor of virtue and sound morality. Ever let 
 it be known that you are sworn enemies to vice and in- 
 trigue. Could the young men of America but see the great 
 conflict that is awaiting them in the future, they no doubt 
 would be arming themselves with the invincible weapons 
 of virtue and manfully meet the growing enemies of 
 American freedom. In conclusion, let me say: Be men 
 in mind, men in virtue, and men in every condition — more, 
 be God-fearing men. 
 
 Hon. Mr. James Mcintosh, my much respected friend, 
 as the representative of this respectable body I have been 
 chosen to welcome you back to your Alma Mater and the 
 scenes rendered dear to you, we doubt not, in other years. 
 We are not entirely ignorant of the feelings that would 
 naturally be awakened in the heart of one who has been 
 absent for a time, and then permitted to renew the old 
 associations of college life by meeting with classmates, 
 fellow-students, and instructors. It would be impossible 
 for me to describe even partially the feelings that are now 
 at work in the hearts of many here, but they may be read 
 in the index of the heart — the countenances of this large 
 audience. The occasion that has called us together is one 
 of great and vital interest to us, and we trust that it will 
 be rife with pleasure and benefit to you. We think in our 
 choice of a man to address us at this time we have been 
 governed strictly by our motto, "Meritum dignitatis noster 
 regula erit." As Philisonians then we welcome you back, 
 as students we welcome you back, and we hesitate not to 
 say that the board of instructors and the citizens of Green- 
 castle who knew you when here also welcome you back, 
 so that you are four times welcome ! 
 
THE MISSION OF AMERICA. 83 
 
 THE MISSION OF AMERICA. 
 
 July Oration, 1852, delivered before the students of the Indiana As- 
 bury University. 
 
 Though America is a theme upon which so many have 
 written, still it presents an unfailing source of matter for 
 the orator and an inexhaustible fund of material for the 
 poet. Tell me not that the subject is hackneyed and want- 
 ing in interest because so many have written and spoken 
 upon it. Better tell me that the ocean is likely to be ex- 
 hausted of its unfathomable treasure of water by the finny 
 tribe that sport in it, than to say that the home of Liberty 
 contains nothing to interest its occupants, because it has 
 been so often eulogized by those who love her with an 
 endearing and unalloyed affection. Had you a tried bosom 
 friend, would you esteem him less for no other reason 
 than that he had been so highly applauded by his ad- 
 mirers? Surely not. As has been said of the fabled 
 Hydra that had a hundred heads and as soon as one was 
 cut off there came two in the place thereof, so it is with 
 our beloved land, the more that is said and written about 
 it, if true, only heightens it in the estimation of all true 
 Americans and multiplies material for its future glorifi- 
 cation. 
 
 We shall accomplish all that we desire or are able to 
 effect on this occasion, if we can but present this subject 
 in an intelligible light to your understandings, and impress 
 your minds with the great truth that you all are or very 
 soon shall be actors in the most important mission that 
 was ever entrusted to any nation or people. "A mission 
 for America !" exclaims one. Yes, a mission imposed 
 upon her not by men only, but by the Ruler and Controller 
 of the affairs of men ! To be sure, we claim for it no 
 direct or positive revelation specifying in so many words 
 that the Republic of America is to accomplish this cer- 
 tain work for the rest of the world; but we claim that it 
 is scarcely less evident that such a demand is made of her 
 by Heaven than if it had been given by direct revelation. 
 If we will but admit "that there is a Divinity that shapes 
 
84 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 our ends" — and we are bold to affirm that the doctrine of 
 an overruling Providence has always been maintained by 
 this Nation — we will surely be at no loss to trace out and 
 develop this fact in our short but eventful history ! Who 
 is there so atheistic in his views that after he has once 
 thoroughly examined the history of this country but can 
 trace the footprints of Deity hard by in our advance to 
 our present prosperity and elevation in the scale of na- 
 tions? Behold yon vessel freighted with the germs of 
 Freedom, mounting the angry billows of the Atlantic with 
 her prow towards the recently discovered continent, there 
 to transplant what for so many centuries in the Old World 
 had been smothered by the weeds of despotism and an- 
 archy. Providence granted the Pilgrim Fathers a safe 
 voyage across the mighty deep, and finally moored them 
 safely by Plymouth's Rock, where they did not forget 
 to bow their knees and offer up the deepest gratitude of 
 overburdened hearts for His protection and care, thus 
 clearly showing that they were not on an errand of self- 
 aggrandizement, but that God had brought them hither. 
 Those seeds of liberty watered by their tears and hallowed 
 by their prayers grew with unparalleled rapidity and sym- 
 metry. Here under the shade of Freedom's Banian they 
 worshiped God according to the dictates of conscience, 
 where no despot dared bound their religious privileges. 
 But the oppressive parent, not willing that they should 
 enjoy these blessings long unmolested, soon imposed her 
 tyrannical laws upon them as when they were under her 
 immediate watchcare. But the thirst for freedom already 
 awakened in their bosoms was not to be extinguished by 
 the combined efforts of the Mother Country. To the wilds 
 of America they had come to enjoy liberty of conscience, 
 of thought, and of speech, and they were not to be 
 thwarted or driven from their object. No doubt they felt 
 the full force of a sentiment uttered by a master Spirit 
 of the Revolution, "Give me Liberty or give me death!" 
 Death will ever be preferable to tyranny, when once the 
 principles of freedom have been deeply seated in the mind. 
 They had indeed from an Omnipotent Source an assurance 
 
THE MISSION OF AMERICA. 85 
 
 of final success in the glorious cause they had espoused, 
 which nerved them for the fearful contest that was shortly 
 to ensue. They had a just cause and a just God to vindi- 
 cate that cause. Was it not this firm reliance on the pro- 
 tection of Heaven that inspired the Congressmen of '76 
 to give to the world that instrument that has been the 
 wonder of men and a terror to tyrants ? Is it strange that 
 we should so venerate those men who gave to us that im- 
 mortal instrument? Will ever truer-hearted men grace 
 the Congress of these Confederate States than those of 
 'j6\ or a nobler object call them together than that for 
 which they were convened? But who were they? A 
 Franklin was there, an Adams, and a Sherman ! We may 
 not now name them all ! But a greater than these was 
 there — the Divine Presence pervaded that memorable as- 
 sembly in an unusual manner, while their ardent prayers 
 were ascending to the God of nations for direction in the 
 important and momentous deliberations of that eventful 
 day and period ! Enter with me to-day — for this is the 
 day on which the event transpired — enter, I say, with me 
 in your imaginations into that old Congress Hall in the 
 City of Brotherly Love and witness the scene that there 
 transpired ! Mark those dignified yet unassuming men 
 as they step forward one after another, conscious of the 
 rectitude of their conduct and the justice of the act they 
 are about to perform, and with a steady hand pen down 
 their names in bold characters, signifying thereby "that 
 their fortunes and their sacred honors were pledged to 
 support the Declaration !" Can you not see depicted in 
 their countenances all that an illustrious son of one of 
 those signers has said in his "supposed speech" concern- 
 ing that much admired document, "Sink or swim, survive 
 or perish, I am for the Declaration!" Did those men 
 shrink from the attitude in which they had placed them- 
 selves to the Mother Country ? No ! they stood like colos- 
 sal pillars sustaining the capacious cathedral of Liberty 
 they had reared as a refuge to the oppressed and down- 
 trodden of every land. This glorious achievement has 
 roused the British Lion from his lair ! Hark ! the report 
 
86 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 of distant cannon warns them of the approach of an ex- 
 asperated enemy ! The tread of a foreign foe is shaking 
 the new continent ! The gallant and fearless Colonists 
 prepare to meet them ! There seems to be a fearful odds 
 against the little phalanx, but the Gideon of America fears 
 not the Scarlet Coats, saying to this little band, "The 
 battle is not to the strong," but to those fighting in free- 
 dom's holy cause. When we consider their numbers and 
 inexperience in the art of war, how are we to account for 
 the unexampled success of the American arms? They 
 certainly had as many impediments to overcome as their 
 antagonists; nay, had they not more? Would you know 
 the secret of their success? Come here. See you that 
 man kneeling at the foot of yon monarch oak with eyes 
 and hands raised towards heaven, supplicating the God of 
 battles that victory might perch upon the standard of the 
 infant Colonies? Can you not draw an argument from 
 this scene convincing and satisfactory why they came off 
 triumphant? When the old Quaker witnessed this strange 
 and heart-thrilling act of the American general, he had 
 no hesitancy in avowing his belief that Columbia's hon- 
 ored sons would surely be the victors, assigning as his 
 reason that George was consulting the Divine Being upon 
 the momentous question. Well did that great and good 
 man know where his strength lay — in the arm of the 
 Omnipotent ! What would have been the fate of that 
 handful of men had there not been praying, God-fearing 
 men among them who daily invoked Heaven's guidance in 
 their struggles for liberty? Thus it has been in every 
 conflict our country has had with the British Lion; though 
 greatly inferior to her antagonist, she has ever come off 
 triumphant ! Such doubtless will ever be the case, so long 
 as our cause is that of justice and freedom. 
 
 We have taken this cursory view of our early history 
 to establish our previous position, that this Nation has 
 been raised up by a gracious Providence for a high and 
 noble purpose. What that purpose was will claim our 
 attention for a short time. First, we remark that it was 
 reserved for this people to solve the long-attempted prob- 
 
THB MISSION OF AMERICA. 87 
 
 lem of self-government. The next and leading object 
 of the mission of the Anglo-American race was the de- 
 velopment and dissemination of religious and political 
 truths. In all this work has there been an adaptation of 
 means to the end proposed? The showing the adaptation 
 of the means to the desired end will claim the residue of 
 our remarks upon this subject. A question very naturally 
 arises just here, What was the cause of the inefficiency 
 of the early republics in not fully solving the problem 
 of self-government? If we can place any confidence in 
 history, it was not for want of intelligence and learning, 
 for they were not a whit behind us in many points of edu- 
 cation and intelligence. Neither was it for want of zeal- 
 ous men to move forward in the great work, for their 
 statesmen and orators have called forth the eulogiums of 
 the present and every other age by their great intellects 
 and overpowering eloquence. Neither was it for any love 
 of country that they did not possess, for they are said 
 to have loved their country and institutions with a devo- 
 tion approaching to adoration ; yet failure has been writ- 
 ten in legible characters upon their every attempt. What 
 important element, then, did they lack in effecting the 
 purpose they so greatly desired? We unhesitatingly affirm 
 that they needed Christianity, which is the great keystone 
 in the arch of Freedom's mighty dome. A system of pure 
 religion would have preserved them as proud monuments 
 of human liberty till the present day ! What lover of free- 
 dom does not lament their sad fate and feel like shunning 
 the rocks upon which their vessel wrecked their high- 
 wrought hopes of future happiness and glory? The civil- 
 ized world are ready to admit that Americans have given 
 the first and only true solution to this intricate problem 
 that has so long puzzled the great intellects of the world. 
 This proud structure of Freedom, which has become the 
 admiration of earth's millions, has for its basis and perma- 
 nency the broad and deep-laid foundation of Christianity. 
 Liberty and Christianity are bosom companions and twin 
 sisters of a celestial clime! They alone can make earth 
 a paradise and the desert to blossom as the rose ! Sepa- 
 
88 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 rate them and you have a hell on earth, where idolatry 
 and superstition reign supreme ! There can be no true 
 liberty where there is no system of pure religion as its 
 foundation; neither can religion exert the influence upon 
 men designed by its Author, unless a good and equitable 
 system of laws is provided to guard man's religious rights 
 and privileges. We admit that Christianity may flourish 
 to a limited extent in monarchies and despotisms; but 
 popular governments will sink so sure as the Christian 
 system is separated from them. Thus far we see the 
 beautiful and necessary relation between two of the great- 
 est acknowledged principles to be found in the world. 
 They are the great mainsprings to human action ! Since 
 this connection or relation between liberty and revealed 
 religion is so manifest, may we not safely infer that the 
 Author of civil society has established this relation for 
 the happiness and well-being of man? If this be the 
 truth — and who can doubt what experience has so amply 
 demonstrated? — will not a neglect upon the part of gov- 
 ernments to strictly observe this relation be the most 
 effectual means of destroying the happiness of civil soci- 
 ety? Most assuredly it will. 
 
 Thus far in our history we have made rapid progress 
 in the science of human government, and have, we trust, 
 laid a sure and permanent foundation, upon which have 
 been placed many of the stones that go to perfect the 
 magnificent temple of Liberty. The day is not very far 
 distant when the crowning stone will be placed upon this 
 lofty fabric by master hands with acclamations of final 
 victory, that will make the welkin ring and reverberate 
 along the walls of Heaven's limitless concave ! An im- 
 portant inquiry presents itself to us as Americans at this 
 crisis ! How are we to preserve this fabric when finished 
 and fully adapted to our use? How shall we best pre- 
 serve this great work that has cost the blood of our re- 
 vered ancestry and their greatest anxiety and intellectual 
 exertion? Virtue and general intelligence are undoubt- 
 edly the great preserving principles in any form of gov- 
 ernment; but how much more so in a representative gov- 
 
THE MISSION OF AMERICA. 89 
 
 eminent! The question then recurs,. Have we the means 
 of becoming virtuous and intelligent? Let us examine 
 and find out if possible what those circumstances and op- 
 portunities are that are calculated to render us a virtuous 
 and intelligent people. First, the benevolent Creator has 
 constituted us moral and intellectual beings, capable of 
 indefinite improvement, with the ability to perceive the 
 obligations arising out of our varied relations, with an 
 impulsive power urging us to their discharge. In ad- 
 dition to the light of Nature, He has given us a system 
 of revealed religion making clear to our understandings 
 what Nature's dim light never could make clear to us. 
 He has also endowed man with the social principle. What 
 would he be without society? It is the bond that unites 
 the' dearest interests of the race, and renders man a bless- 
 ing to his fellow-man. So long as we follow the dictates 
 of this principle controlled by Christianity, society will 
 rapidly advance toward the goal of human perfectibility. 
 If men would but use aright the means placed within their 
 reach for the elevation of society, what high and flattering 
 hopes there would be for poor down-trodden human na- 
 ture ! We are not of the number of those who suppose 
 that mankind are deteriorating, but believe that we are 
 now entering the golden period in human progression, and 
 that our own country is to be the great center from which 
 the luminous rays will pour in every direction upon the 
 rest of tne world ! Here is to be found a land filled with 
 churches and institutions of learning, which are the surest 
 evidences of the virtue and intelligence of a people that 
 are to be found among the works of men. Are we to be 
 considered egotistic when we assert a fact of which we 
 may well be proud — that we are the greatest Church-going 
 Nation in the world? The American people have been 
 styled by a French writer of some note the greatest en- 
 thusiasts in matters of religion in all Christendom, a title 
 they by no means disdain to own. Can there be any cause 
 of wonder that they should be so ardent about that which 
 they too well know is the basis and stay of their repub- 
 lican institutions? They have not been endeavoring to 
 
90 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 establish this democracy without learning lessons of vital 
 importance to them from the history of their more unsuc- 
 cessful predecessors. This Government is not the off- 
 spring of a blind conatns, or the result of hasty thought 
 and action upon the part of its founders; but is the work 
 of ages and great minds directed by an unseen Power. 
 Is it, indeed, a subject of astonishment that the founders 
 of this Republic should have discovered the defects in the 
 systems of the early republics that rendered them so short- 
 lived, when the facts have been so faithfully transmitted 
 to them by the historian of former and later times? It 
 would certainly be saying but little for their judgment 
 and common sense to suppose that they did not scrupu- 
 lously and carefully compare the past and its events with 
 present indications. They in their deductions saw the 
 utter inefficiency of natural religion to reform men and 
 raise society to its pristine condition. Their attention was 
 attracted by that great Luminary in the moral world, that 
 has been pouring its light upon the understandings of men 
 for the last eighteen centuries ! They hailed it as the last 
 and only hope for the world's salvation from the shackles 
 of tyranny and despotism, as well as for man's salvation 
 from the thralldom of sin. Nor has it proved to be a 
 mere "ignis fatuns" to its followers, but an enlivening and 
 conservative principle. To-day Portugal and Spain are 
 reaping the reward of their folly in banishing the light 
 of Christianity from their midst by their inhuman perse- 
 cutions of those who were its most ardent supporters. It 
 is a law that holds good in morals as well as in physics, 
 that certain causes will infallibly produce certain effects, 
 though the sequences in morals may not follow immedi- 
 ately as they do in the physical world; nevertheless they 
 most assuredly will follow sooner or later. May we not 
 observe something in the ineffectual attempts of France — 
 a most polished and intelligent nation — at establishing a 
 democratic government, that too plainly declares their 
 destitution of some great cardinal principle? How are 
 we to account for the fact that such a man as Louis Na- 
 poleon, decidedly monarchical in his views, should receive 
 
THE MISSION OF AMERICA. 91 
 
 the enormous majority of seven million of votes for the 
 highest office within the gift of that people, who had so 
 lately manifested almost unparalleled zeal and activity in 
 freeing their country of the last remains of monarchy ! 
 And what renders it still more remarkable is, that the re- 
 publicans had the ascendency and, as the gazing world 
 thought, were about to consign monarchy to a dreamless 
 grave; but, alas! the present appearances are ominous of 
 a signal defeat. Christian America, however, thinks not 
 strange of their ill-success when she recollects that Chris- 
 tianity must of necessity precede republicanism. France 
 is not yet prepared to live under such a government as 
 she has been contemplating. The means they have been 
 employing are not adequate to the end proposed, conse- 
 quently the result has not been reached. The truth of the 
 declaration, "Whatsoever ye sow that shall ye also reap," 
 is as immutable as the Being who uttered it ! The seeds 
 of monarchy and infidelity have been lavishly sown in 
 their social, literary, and political institutions, and they are 
 now reaping an abundant harvest in accordance with the 
 promise. It is to be sincerely hoped that there have been 
 of late some of the precious seed of Christianity scattered 
 here and there among that people that will be multiplied 
 and preserved till the period when they shall be fully pre- 
 pared to administer and enjoy such a form of government. 
 That such is not their condition at present, is too evident 
 from the great civil strife and internal feuds that con- 
 tinually harass them. If they expect the same results 
 that have followed our efforts, they must commence where 
 we did and tenaciously adhere to the strict principles of 
 justice and uncompromising virtue. Christianity is to 
 fieedom what Gibraltar is to those inhabiting it. 
 
 But the scientific and literary condition of our beloved 
 country is likefy to prove highly conducive to the well- 
 being of this great and growing Confederacy. Are not 
 our prospects for the future truly flattering? Already our 
 schools and universities are beginning to vie with the first 
 and oldest institutions of learning in Europe. A host of 
 men are annually issuing from our colleges who are leav- 
 
92 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 ing their marks in the world of letters and eloquence! 
 How rapidly they are multiplying in our midst! The 
 spirit of education is abroad, and is taking deep root in 
 the public mind. The exclamation, Educate ! Educate ! ! 
 is becoming general. Such, too, is the nature of our sys- 
 tem of education, that the poor by industry and economy 
 are enabled to enter the lists with the rich for literary 
 honors, and not unfrequently bear away the palm from 
 their more highly favored competitors. In this country 
 the way to political, scientific, and literary preferment 
 is not through the channels of wealth or through some 
 favored line of aristocracy or blood royal; but more fre- 
 quently we find that our legislative assemblies, pulpits, 
 and institutions of learning are graced with men from the 
 hovels of the poor and the humbler walks of life. And the 
 very circumstance that they had to struggle and toil hard 
 against the inconveniences of poverty and their social 
 condition, has been the means of qualifying them so emi- 
 nently for the responsibe positions they hold among us; 
 while those who have been reared in the lap of opulence 
 and indolence are known for nothing, unless it be for little 
 minds encased in diminutive bodies. Ours is becoming 
 as emphatically the land of literary labor, as it has been 
 heretofore styled the land of political and manual toil. 
 Labor, mental and manual, is the watchword of Amer- 
 icans, and most satisfactorily accounts for her rapid prog- 
 ress and unprecedented success ! May not we in the 
 future, without incurring the censure of being dreamy, 
 claim as high a niche for American literature in the tem- 
 ple of Learning as any nation can boast? Nay, will she 
 not reign queen of the ascendant? For her then we claim 
 it, and not without reason and sufficient premises for the 
 claim. Not only is our peculiar form of government ad- 
 mirably adapted to the educational interest, but we have 
 a superabundance of means to carry forward the great 
 work of training the mind ; and last, but not least, we have 
 the men who possess the energy of character and power 
 of intellect to achieve ■ the mighty task ! This is not a 
 mere assertion or empty declamation without facts to sus- 
 
THE MISSION OF AMERICA. 93 
 
 tain it, as the short history of our educational movements 
 sufficiently attests. The literary taste of this country is 
 mounting its shining way with planetary speed to its 
 zenith of grandeur and sublimity ! Be proud, then, of 
 your position in the world's literary galaxy, and though 
 young nobly emulate the higher standard reared by Eu- 
 rope, and only higher because much older than your own. 
 Nay, be second to none; stop not short of the very apex 
 of Learning's temple, but there plant your colors and stand 
 by and defend them with the weapon education has fur- 
 nished — truth, omnipotent truth ! American authors are 
 taking their stand with those of Europe, while their num- 
 bers are multiplying with a rapidity heretofore unknown 
 in the annals of history. May great prosperity still attend 
 the growing literature of our country, and preserve it 
 unadulterated from licentiousness, infidelity, and the 
 blighting touch of atheism. 
 
 Another mighty engine in the cause of religion and 
 liberty in this country is the press. What a flood of light 
 and knowledge is flowing into every department of society 
 through this channel, dispelling the mists of ignorance and 
 superstition that have so long been darkening the mental 
 world and arresting the progress of civilization and re- 
 finement ! What a weapon the press is in the hands of 
 freemen ! It is equal to the task of upturning the very 
 foundations of society, and bringing about revolutions 
 that terrify tyrants and pampered aristocracies ! It is 
 becoming the great arcanum of the world's thoughts, by 
 means of the myriads of volumes that are issuing there- 
 from. But little that transpires among men is suffered 
 to pass unnoticed; a faithful record of each circumstance 
 of importance is being kept in its order. Can even a mod- 
 erate estimate be formed of what has been lost for want 
 of a knowledge of the art of printing in the primitive 
 ages? Who, then, will undertake the task of computing 
 the value to future generations from the present achieve- 
 ments of the press? Much, indeed, is said and written 
 in this country concerning the great freedom of the press ; 
 yet it should not be forgotten that an unlimited license 
 
94 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 would only be to destroy this freedom altogether. The 
 licentiousness of the press must be prohibited, or else 
 political and religious liberty will suffer the sad conse- 
 quences arising from the perusal of the corrupting publi- 
 cations that will be thrown upon society without this re- 
 striction. But may we never behold the day when the 
 press shall be prohibited from publishing those works that 
 can be successfully combated by reason and truth ! Truth 
 has nothing to fear from error, so long as she can meet her 
 in the broad and open field of Reason, but will, as she ever 
 has done, come off victor in the engagement. Are we not, 
 then, to consider the press as one of the strong, colossal 
 pillars that is to support this massive tabernacle of Free- 
 dom? Its relation and adaptation to the rest of the great 
 machinery must be evident to every reflecting mind. May 
 those who stand at the head of this important department 
 show themselves worthy of the high and responsible po- 
 sition they occupy in the great drama of human liberty 
 that is being acted before the gaze of the down-trodden 
 nations of the world ! 
 
 But we come to the political aspect of our country, 
 which is probably a much more, interesting and important 
 feature than the press and its freedom. We grant that 
 one could not well exist without the other, their connection 
 being of the utmost importance in the upbuilding of gov- 
 ernments. How broad the basis and liberal are the prin- 
 ciples upon which our laws are established ! It is the ex- 
 tensive platform of substantial equality — yes, equality of 
 rights and not of condition, as some interpret it, who 
 have more zeal and enthusiasm than clearness of percep- 
 tion. As has already been intimated, the principles of 
 Christianity lie at the foundation of our civil institutions 
 and laws. A Constitution we have, looking to the good 
 and happiness of the governed, designating their rights 
 as citizens and making provision for the protection of 
 those rights, also pointing out their duties as citizens of 
 the body politic; in a word, embracing everything neces- 
 sary to the well-being of society in general, as well as 
 to individual man. It is the simplest and yet the most 
 
THE MISSION OF AMERICA. 95 
 
 perfect Constitution ever framed by any government. 
 Where were ever the rights of property so securely 
 guarded as under our Constitution; where the marriage 
 contract so highly respected and shielded as here? These 
 rights and this contract are absolutely necessary to the 
 existence of civil society. Were they entirely disregarded, 
 society would rapidly deteriorate and an extinction of the 
 race would soon be the result. Neither was this Consti- 
 tution framed to meet the wants of one State merely, but 
 to meet the necessities of an entire family of States, unit- 
 ing them in the strong bonds of fraternal affection and 
 mutual interest, making the interest of one the interest of 
 all. To carry out the provisions of this memorable docu- 
 ment we have legislative, judicial, and executive depart- 
 ments, in which the highest talent of the Nation may de- 
 velop itself, and thus fully meet the great end for which 
 the benevolent Creator bestowed it upon the race. While 
 these departments of our Government are filled with men 
 who are consulting for the social, civil, and temporal weal 
 of their country, we find a host of great and good men in- 
 dustriously engaged in the great moral department of the 
 same looking to the religious and moral interests of the 
 entire people. What harmony we behold here among the 
 various parts, each working for the interest of the other, 
 the legislator framing laws for the protection of men in 
 their religious privileges, while the divine is laboring to 
 better the moral condition of those composing the Govern- 
 ment, thereby rendering them law-abiding and peace- 
 loving citizens. And to-day, while we are celebrating the 
 birthday of American Independence, thousands of little, 
 smiling Sunday-school children are collected together to 
 commemorate the acts of their forefathers, who purchased 
 for them the religious and civil freedom they thus so much 
 enjoy ! And what a happy reflection it is that our future 
 rulers are to be men who have been taught the principles 
 of morality and religion in this great institution of the 
 venerated Raikes ! Do not such spectacles as these augur a 
 brighter day in the future for heaven-favored America 
 than has ever yet dawned upon it? What more lovely 
 
96 STORY OF MY LIFB. 
 
 sight could present itself to the view of intelligent men, 
 than to see Liberty and Christianity marching side by side 
 towards the goal of human freedom ! The world's hope is 
 in this nursery of the Church ! Is not the name of Robert 
 Raikes to be remembered and honored as one of the 
 greatest that has been written on the immortal tablet of 
 earth's great and good? His acts are worthy to be cele- 
 brated on this our great national festival by every Amer- 
 ican ! His name shall never be forgotten while the proud 
 bird of American independence soars above us as the 
 sentinel of our cherished institutions ! Have we not then 
 as a Nation the strongest evidences that could be possibly 
 presented, declaring in the most unmistakable manner 
 the magnitude of our obligations and the imperious neces- 
 sity of immediate and unceasing activity in discharging 
 these obligations? 
 
 If the view we have taken of our history and the cir- 
 cumstances with which we are at present surrounded be 
 correct — which is a view we think can not be avoided 
 when dispassionately considered — does it not certainly ap- 
 pear that there is a most important mission for us as a 
 people to fulfill? As the means are unlimited, we would 
 infer that the end to be attained by those means must be 
 similar in its character. The Author of man's being has 
 not only shown by the light of natural religion, but much 
 more clearly by a Divine revelation, that the nations of 
 the earth may and ought to free themselves from the 
 chains of despotism and tyranny. The free and enlight- 
 ened of the earth are to let their light shine and penetrate 
 the darkest retreats of the despotisms of the Old World, 
 and thus dispel the gloom that has so long enshrouded 
 them. Should not this mighty Nation take the lead in 
 the world's political salvation? Are we not looked up to 
 by the nations of the earth as an example of what Chris- 
 tianity can do for those who would be free ? Arise then, 
 my countrymen, and equip yourselves for bold and ener- 
 getic action ! 
 
 But this mission can never be successfully discharged 
 without individual effort and untiring activity. The only 
 
THE MISSION OF AMERICA. 97 
 
 successful way to impress upon society the importance of 
 discharging their obligations, is to force the truth home 
 upon the individuals composing that society or govern- 
 ment. How comparatively small is the number of those 
 who really take an abiding interest or active part in the 
 great and leading enterprises of the day for the advance- 
 ment of society ! It is a lamentable truth, and one to 
 which this Nation should awake, that the great and lead- 
 ing movements in the literary, scientific, and legal depart- 
 ments of society are the emanations of a few great intel- 
 lects ! This will account to some extent for the world's 
 slow progress heretofore. The harvest truly is great; but 
 how few are the laborers ! We are aware that the system 
 of the division of labor has been largely written and 
 spoken about during the present century; yet the masses 
 laboring in those various departments have not been di- 
 recting their efforts strictly to the important end to be 
 gained, but have suffered sinister motives to draw off their 
 attention from the general good to that of mere personal 
 emolument. Should not every citizen of this far-reaching 
 Commonwealth sedulously endeavor to learn his respective 
 sphere of action, and then labor for the general good of 
 society? "Individual sacrifice" says an eminent orator, 
 "is universal strength." What improvement would we 
 behold did every individual use his utmost endeavors to 
 contribute something and lay it upon the common altar ! 
 Let us seriously ask ourselves the question to-day, Can 
 there be a nobler altar than that of our country ? — for our 
 country's altar is but the altar of our God; and if not, 
 why should we not, on this the seventy-sixth year of our 
 national independence, lay ourselves as sacrifices upon it, 
 and vow to that Being who has so tenderly regarded and 
 taken care of us as a Nation that we will ever be true to 
 its highest interests, and hand it down to coming gener- 
 ations as Heaven's best gift to man ! But shall it not be 
 greatly enlarged and beautified before we transmit it to 
 them? Let monumental pile and pillar rise heavenward 
 in memory of our honored dead that will defy the corrod- 
 ing tooth of time. And upon them let our eagle perch 
 7 
 
98 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 when weary, and be the first to greet the king of day 
 as he mounts the eastern sky, and be the last to bid him 
 adieu as he descends to his western home ! Yes, — 
 
 "Now rest thee, Eagle, from thy fancy flight, 
 
 And hovering o'er the capitolian dome 
 Outspread thy brooding pinions with delight, 
 
 For ages long and brilliant yet to come ; 
 
 While ending thus my unpretending tome, 
 One wish, one fervent prayer to Heaven aspires ; 
 
 Forever spread thy wings o'er Freedom's home; 
 Forever, while gazing world admires, 
 Shout o'er thy country's weal, amid thy starry fires." 
 
 Let us then break forth in the language of our own 
 Franklin, and exclaim, "Where liberty dwells there is 
 my country!" Not only would we dwell here; but here 
 would we die and be buried, and rest with the martyrs of 
 Freedom, and with them have a resurrection when all 
 human governments shall have ceased to exist. 
 
 MORAL EFFORT. 
 
 An Oration at Graduation, 1852. 
 
 Man's true sphere is action. He is a triune being 
 made up of physical, intellectual, and moral natures. Such 
 is the relation subsisting between these, that if one lies 
 inactive the others receive a corresponding damage. 
 
 Consult the history of the past, and tell us what real 
 good the world has derived from the labors of those who 
 have exclusively devoted themselves to wrestling and box- 
 ing in the Olympic games and athletic schools in which 
 they acquired for themselves a fame for brute force. Who 
 envies the renown that a Hercules or Milo gained for 
 themselves by their supposed physical powers, while no 
 act of true virtue or benevolence marked their entire lives? 
 What was there in the character of the Macedonian con- 
 queror, or in the most ambitious of the Julian family, or 
 in the exile of St. Helena, except their cultivated minds 
 
MORAL EFFORT. 99 
 
 that challenges for a moment your admiration? And 
 what are cultivated intellects when employed to degrade 
 the noblest powers of man's nature but so many curses 
 to the world? Do the slaughters at Arbela and Issus, or 
 Alexander's disgraceful death at Babylon call forth your 
 moral approval? Do Caesar's encounters on the plains of 
 Pharsalia and at Munda, or his crossing the Rubicon 
 beyond which he had no right to go, raise him in your esti- 
 mation as a moral being? Do not the unbridled ambition 
 and inhuman treatment of the Corsican general towards 
 his soldiers disqualify him for a place in your admiration 
 and regards? Posterity will surely measure out to all 
 such men the praises due to such exploits. Let every act 
 of the lives of those conquerors be thrown into one scale 
 of a just balance, and the single act of integrity of Regu- 
 lus, the Carthaginian captive, placed in the other; it will 
 far outweigh them all ! When their names and deeds shall 
 have been forgotten, the name of that Roman consul will 
 be remembered and cherished by the good and truly great 
 of earth. 
 
 But in point of intellectual excellence, whose character 
 and reputation do you most admire? Are they those of 
 Hobbes, Hume, Voltaire, Paine, and Byron? Or do 
 you not rather take a loftier flight, and suffer your 
 mind to dwell upon the greatness of such men as Paul, 
 Luther, Zwingli, Wesley, Howard, and Wilberforce? 
 Moral effort was the distinguishing characteristic in their 
 lives, and their intellectual powers were carried forward 
 to the highest state of development and activity. But 
 there is a moral sublimity connected with their acts that 
 excites in us the deepest emotions of moral approval, and 
 even forces the most abandoned in their more considerate 
 moments to admire and reverence. 
 
 Nothing but moral effort can dispel the more than 
 Egyptian darkness that lingers around the minds of the 
 bestialized heathen, and exterminate from this fair abode 
 of man the tyranny and slavery under which so many of 
 the nations of the earth are at present laboring and groan- 
 ing. The Macedonian cry that is wafted to our shores 
 
ioo STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 at nearly every breeze will surely not be disregarded by 
 the lover of his race. A missionary ship freighted with 
 Bibles and God's messengers shall be sent to them upon 
 the next favoring gale. 
 
 And where are we to find the men who are willing to 
 sacrifice the endearments of home, of friends, and the 
 sweets of civilization to go to heathen lands to elevate the 
 degraded and proclaim to them the glad news of the 
 world's great Deliverer ? Not among atheists and infidels ; 
 not among the irreligious part of community; not among 
 political aspirants and demagogues, whose philanthropy is 
 circumscribed to the narrow bounds of self-aggrandize- 
 ment and self-preferment; nor yet among those whose all- 
 absorbing concern is to acquire the honors of this world 
 and to amass its wealth. Where, then, are we to look for 
 them? Hark! a cry comes from the Christian Church, 
 "Here am I ; send me !" Again I hear that cry, and still 
 again with simultaneous voice more than a thousand re- 
 peat the thrilling sentence, "Here am I ; send me." Thank 
 Heaven, there is no mean number who are willing to 
 forego the charms of wealth, of ease and worldly honors, 
 for the sake of their unfortunate brethren of other lands 
 and tongues ! The spirit of a Martyn and a Cox still lives 
 in many a noble breast, and vibrates to the call of human 
 misery. Not satisfied with the sacrifices of wealth, of 
 home, of liberty, and cherished institutions, they are will- 
 ing to spend years of confinement and intellectual exertion 
 to qualify themselves for the arduous undertaking! Such 
 is not the course pursued by men who are desirous of 
 gaining the applause of the populace, or who strive for 
 personal ease and emolument. 
 
 On the day of final retribution, whose position would 
 you most envy — if we may be allowed to use this term — 
 the missionary's or the zealless, half-hearted philanthropist 
 whose benevolence and moral effort have been circum- 
 scribed too much by earthly interests and considerations? 
 If there are degrees of happiness and glory in that home 
 of the blest and good, certainly the missionary may lay 
 claim to the highest seat of honor and bliss in that City 
 
HONOLULU CORRESPONDENCE. 101 
 
 of Jasper and Pearl, whose streets are paved with bur- 
 nished gold ! Let me when Gabriel's shrill clarion shall 
 summon the slumbering millions from the four winds 
 come up with the company of missionaries from the islands 
 of the Main, or from Asia, or from the Pacific Coast. 
 This will be enough glory and honor for one poor mortal ! 
 Let the ambitious and lovers of this world's fame drink 
 in the flatteries and fulsome adulations of men till they 
 sicken; but grant me the peace and joy of a life spent in 
 doing good and Heaven's smiles, and I ask no more. 
 
 HONOLULU CORRESPONDENCE, 1857. 
 
 A TRIP TO HAWAII. 
 
 Since; our last date it has been our privilege to visit 
 the island of Hawaii. This is the most southeasterly of 
 the group. In size and interest it outstrips all the rest. 
 It is the lion of these islands, and we may say of the world, 
 in one sense. It has some of the highest mountains, one 
 of the finest valleys, and the largest volcano in the world. 
 But more of these again. 
 
 We left the harbor of Honolulu May 28th, on the 
 schooner Lihililo, in company with Revs. Coan and Ly- 
 man, Shipman of Kau, Mr. and Mrs. Bingham, mission- 
 aries, who are soon to go to Mikronesia, and a few other 
 of our townsmen. A pleasant company this, abating the 
 hundred natives, more or less, strewed all over the deck 
 with their calabashes of poi, dogs, etc. Though we had 
 the most commodious and comfortable of all the poi clip- 
 pers, of which we boast quite a number, still this inter- 
 island travel is by no means agreeable. Our comfortable 
 vessel and pleasant company were not sufficient security 
 against seasickness. Neptune drew more than one reluc- 
 tant Europe and New York from us. The variety in this 
 inter-island travel is fresh breezes, quite like gales ; heavy 
 chopped seas, interrupted with protracted calms, that are 
 no kind of relief to seasickness. The second day out we 
 made the harbor of Kawaihae. 
 
102 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 Our stay at this point was short. It presents anything 
 but an attractive appearance from the water. There are 
 at present but four or five houses, and these trading 
 houses. The country around for miles looks wretchedly 
 sterile. There is scarcely a spear of vegetation to be 
 seen for miles inland. Rocks and red soil abound. The 
 eye is relieved by belts of grass, shrubs, and woods upon 
 the mountain slopes. From this point we had a good view 
 of Mauna Kea and Mauna L,oa. These are snow-capped 
 for the greater part of the year. It was here that the brig 
 Thaddeus landed the first missionaries to these islands, 
 the Revs. Mr. Bingham and Thurston. This was thirty- 
 seven years ago. The former was shortly after this 
 assigned to Honolulu, where he labored for years, and 
 then returned to the United States; the latter is on the 
 spot till this hour that was first assigned him. Kawaihae 
 is further notable for being the residence of old Kame- 
 hameh I. There are still to be seen at this place the re- 
 mains of an old heathen temple built by this distinguished 
 Hawaiian. This lies four square, and from the bay looks 
 as though it might be three or four hundred feet 
 in length. When this temple was commenced it is said 
 several human victims were sacrificed, which was their 
 custom in those days. 
 
 Some four of us had intended landing at this place, 
 but as we could not supply ourselves with horses to our 
 minds we went to the next stopping-place, which is 
 Kohala. 
 
 We landed here in the night, and had some twelve 
 miles to travel by land before we could find suitable lodg- 
 ings. We were only able to procure two horses between 
 four of us. One of our number being a lady, one horse 
 had to serve three of us. We alternated in riding. Not 
 being able to get a lady's saddle, Mrs. Bingham was com- 
 pelled, of necessity, to ride a la Hawaii. We reached Rev. 
 Mr. Bond's station about four o'clock in the morning. 
 Kohala is a beautiful district, lying on the northeast shore 
 of the island. It is adapted to grazing. We spent the 
 Sabbath with Mr. Bond, attending services in the native 
 
HONOLULU CORRESPONDENCE. 103 
 
 church, which by the way is the finest church edifice we 
 have seen among the native churches. Mr. Bond is a 
 stirring, energetic man, much devoted to his work. Rev. 
 Mr. Bingham and myself were requested to speak to the 
 natives through an interpreter. Such kind treatment as 
 we received from Mr. Bond has not often been our priv- 
 ilege. He is a true brother and Christian gentleman. 
 Being greatly refreshed by the rest of the Sabbath and 
 the many kindnesses of Mr. and Mrs. Bond, we left late 
 on Monday morning for Waimea. 
 
 This place is distant from Kohala some twenty-five 
 miles. We arrived here after a steady ride about sunset. 
 Waimea is a native village and mission station. Rev. Mr. 
 Lyon is the pastor, and has been here for twenty-five 
 years. He and his family being absent, we had to find 
 quarters somewhere else. I think the name W^aimea is 
 given to the country about, as well as to the village. This 
 is a strip of land lying between Kohala Mountain and 
 Mauna Kea, averaging eight or ten miles in width, and 
 some thirty miles in length, stretching from sea to sea. 
 This region for the most part appears fertile. The staple 
 of this district are potatoes, sheep, and cattle. Waimea, 
 though said to be six thousand feet above the level of the 
 sea, does not appear to be more than one thousand feet. 
 This deceptive appearance doubtless arises from the tre- 
 mendous height of the mountains in the immediate vicin- 
 ity. We put up with an old English gentleman by the 
 name of Sparkes, who is engaged in the sheep busi- 
 ness. A person of favorable dimensions and withal ec- 
 centric. 
 
 There is a cave in the vicinity of Waimea village, the 
 existence of which we did not learn till we reached Hilo. 
 In this are to be found human bodies in a preserved state, 
 somewhat like the mummies of Egypt. These bodies, 
 though entire, are much shriveled. Whether the natives 
 in former times had any method of preserving their dead, 
 or whether it is owing to the state of the atmosphere in 
 this cave, we have no certain means of knowing. These 
 bodies, however, have been there for a long time, probably 
 
104 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 centuries. A gentleman who explored this cave told me 
 that some one who had preceded him had put a tobacco- 
 pipe in the mouth of one of these mummies, to lead some 
 traveler fond of antiquities into the great mistake of call- 
 ing smoking an ancient practice with these islanders. But 
 a little examination shows that the style of the pipe is 
 quite modern. We were strongly led to suspect, from the 
 facetiousness of the above-named gentleman, and his great 
 fondness for the pipe, that this whole mummy-pipe ar- 
 rangement was original with him. This, however, is not 
 material. Reader, if you ever go to Waimea, visit the 
 mummies, pipe or no pipe. Do n't wait for Father Sparkes 
 to inform you that there is such a cave, for he may be 
 shearing sheep, as he was when we were there. Sheep 
 are his hobby; and ascending lofty mountains is a passion 
 with Mr. Bingham, my companion in travel. So we will 
 introduce the reader to Mauna Kea. 
 
 As intimated, my fellow-traveler, who, being somewhat 
 of an adventurer, expressed a strong desire to ascend this 
 mountain, whose snow-white summit seemed not more 
 than a mile distant from us, though many miles. Two 
 men and three horses made up our arrangements for trans- 
 porting us, our provisions, and luggage. About 2 o'clock 
 P. M. we set out for the mountain. We had no guide, 
 depending wholly upon our own judgment in the matter. 
 After reaching the foo.t-hills we passed through a thicket 
 of chapparal, of some two or three miles in width. 
 Through this there was nothing but a narrow cattle trail, 
 and this running out every now and then. We got through 
 this by half an hour sun. We were now in broad savan- 
 nas, covered with rank grass. The ascent being quite 
 gradual, we made the best of our road and time. We were 
 occasionally greeted by small herds of wild cattle, with 
 which this mountain abounds. They having been chased 
 much of late, and we being no vaqueras, and not know- 
 ing whether our horses were accustomed to wild cattle, 
 rode in some fear. The dense bank of cloud or fog that 
 generally sets on this mountain side kept moving rapidly 
 toward us, till we were soon enveloped in it. A heavy 
 
HONOLULU CORRESPONDENCE. 105 
 
 mist, amounting almost to rain, fell till it ran off our um- 
 brellas in a stream. We traveled on till between 8 and 9 
 o'clock P. M., hoping to find some cave or shelter for the 
 night. The mist was so dense that we could see but a rod 
 or two in any direction. The moon finally broke through the 
 mist, telling us that we had nearly passed through the belt 
 of fog. We saw a solitary tree a short distance before us, 
 which proved to have extensive branches and fine foliage, 
 affording tolerable shelter. Being wet, hungry, and weary, 
 we all, with one consent, stopped here for the night. We 
 found good grazing for our horses. We unsaddled and 
 staked them out. There being no wood in a combustible 
 state, we made out to make a cup of tea by a small spirit 
 lamp. After eating a bite we had religious devotions, 
 and laid us down to sleep. We were reminded frequently 
 through the night that we were in a higher latitude than 
 any of us had experienced for some time. To add to our 
 discomfort several wild bulls tried their lungs most vocif- 
 erously in the immediate vicinity. So, between Boreas 
 and the bulls, we were not much refreshed in the morning. 
 There being a general shivering among men and horses, 
 I proposed an early start, thinking up-hill exercise might 
 raise the thermometer somewhat. So we set out a few 
 minutes after 4 o'clock A. M. Our upward movement 
 had the desired result. In two hours' time we had got 
 fairly into the woods. About 8 o'clock we stopped and 
 breakfasted. These woods were really refreshing. Our 
 ears were frequently saluted with the sudden snort of wild 
 hogs, started from their nest, the shrill bellowing of wild 
 bulls on neighboring hills, and the caroling of birds. 
 Surely this was more homelike than anything we had seen 
 or heard for years. These sounds were inharmoniously 
 harmonious. We never before understood so well how it 
 was that a discord in music sometimes adds to the har- 
 mony. All nature conspired to please us, ear and eye. 
 The mountain being nearly free from fog and cloud we 
 had a fine view of the ocean, the landscape beneath, and 
 the neighboring mountains, Kohala, Hualalai, and Mauna 
 Loa, stood up by our side in grand proportions. But 
 
106 STORY OF MY LIFB. 
 
 Mauna Loa ! Such a mountain ! It is, as its name im- 
 ports, a long or round mountain. It contrasts finely with 
 its sisters, Hualalai and Mauna Kea. The regularity of 
 its conformation is beautiful ! Its huge dome inspires 
 one with a sense of grandeur and sublimity that can not 
 well be described by the pen. From this standpoint we 
 had a view of the new outbreak, or eruption, that has 
 caused much remark of late in the public print. This ap- 
 parently is about midway up Mauna Loa. Nothing could 
 be observed but some smoke arising. The distance was too 
 great to detect anything like a crater with the naked eye. 
 Having feasted our eyes on the sublime wonders of cre- 
 ation as they presented themselves from this point of ob- 
 servation, we mounted our horses and pressed on for the 
 summit of Mauna Kea, which loomed up before us in wild 
 grandeur, not apparently farther from us than some mus- 
 cular arm could throw a stone. 
 
 In a few minutes we were beyond the bound of all 
 vegetation, the increasing difficulties of ascent warning 
 us the while that we were nearing the base of some of the 
 tremendous peaks that stud the summit of this gray old 
 mountain. Our path was over lava and scoria. Old Sol 
 was unusually lavish of his light and heat this day. The 
 lava and scoria make fine reflectors of his rays. By 10 
 o'clock we had traveled as far with our horses as was 
 practicable or safe. We were now evidently at the real 
 base of some of the first peaks of Mauna Kea. We dis- 
 mounted (which, by the way we did frequently during 
 the morning), relieved our horses of their furniture; 
 staked them out upon the climpcrs, as they are called here. 
 We left our white man Andrew in charge of the animals 
 and stuff. Andrew, being barefoot, had no inclination to 
 ascend higher, Sammy (our native boy), thought he must 
 go with us. We lost no time. Mr. Bingham remarked 
 to Andrew that he might look for us back by noon. I re- 
 plied, "You had better say i o'clock P. M." One o'clock 
 was agreed upon. One peak lifted its head far above its 
 four or five neighbors. We made sure it was the summit. 
 Apparently it was between two and three thousand feet 
 
HONOLULU CORRESPONDENCE. 107 
 
 above us ; but the road leading to it considerably increased 
 the distance. Our native boy Sammy fell behind before 
 we had proceeded far, and concluded to stop when he 
 should have reached a small patch of snow some quarter 
 of a mile off, and then return to the horses. This was the 
 first time he ever had the privilege of putting his hands 
 into snow; and he remarked that it was the last time he 
 desired to. He thought better of the tropical climate of 
 his native Kau, than this to him hyperborean region. 
 
 But we hastened on to the summit — our ambition, 
 being bounded only by the summit of this Mont Blanc 
 of the Pacific. Our stages over the rugged lava and grit- 
 ting and giving scoria were short and exceedingly ener- 
 vating. The rapidity of our pulse, the beating of the heart, 
 and the thunderings of our eardrums warned us that we 
 were some thirteen thousand feet above the sea. A few 
 rods were sufficient to provoke a blow, or rest. But our 
 hopes of planting our feet upon the apex of the highest 
 mountain in the Pacific hastened us nearly beyond our 
 strength. But, kind reader, we need not inform you that 
 our courage sunk several degrees in the scale when we 
 gained this peak, and saw "Alps on Alps arise" in the dis- 
 tance ! Fields of snow, averaging about eight inches in 
 depth, lay between us and the bases of the peaks beyond. 
 It was then 12 o'clock. "This does not look much like 
 getting back to the men and horses at noon," I replied to 
 Bingham, my companion. "No," he replied, "if we think 
 of going to the top of yon peak !" We seated ourselves 
 upon a flat rock of lava on the margin of a snow bank, 
 and took our lunch and quenched our raging thirst with 
 snow, cold snow, sir ! We thanked God for snow, after 
 being on a short allowance of water from the time we set 
 out on this trip. 
 
 While sitting here my attention was called to the firma- 
 ment above. Though the sun was shining in meridian 
 splendor, yet the sky had lost its blue, and put on almost 
 a pitch black. I called the attention of my friend Bingham 
 to this singular phenomenon. It struck him as strange 
 also. I asked him if it could be an illusion, or was it 
 
108 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 caused by the glare of the sun from the snow upon our 
 eyes? We agreed that it could be neither of these after 
 looking several times. It was not unlike going into a room 
 that is partially lighted after -looking upon the snow for a 
 long time, and the pupil of the eye is contracted to its 
 utmost limit. The only rational conclusion we could come 
 to was, that we were looking through a much rarer 
 medium than was our custom. 
 
 But a man who has a passion for ascending high moun- 
 tains and had been on the Alps, as my companion Bingham 
 had been only a year or two ago, did not feel like giving 
 up the idea of standing on the summit of the same peak 
 that his father had done while a missionary in these 
 islands. Having no disposition to be outdone myself, I 
 gave a banter to proceed. We urged our way on for what 
 appeared to us the highest of some five peaks. Having 
 reached and ascended it, we were convinced that two more 
 ahead of us were two or three hundred feet higher. Hav- 
 ing a good view from the last named peak, we felt well 
 assured that there were none higher than the two just 
 mentioned. We descended and consulted as to what 
 should be done. It was now 3 o'clock, and we had a long 
 road to travel back to the men and horses. As we had 
 staid already two hours beyond our time, and the men and 
 animals were suffering for want of water and food, and 
 we on our last legs, we concluded that it was best, upon 
 the whole, to return and get down to vegetation to give 
 our horses something to eat. We can assure you that it 
 went terribly against the grain to give up so; but we con- 
 soled ourselves that it was only three hundred feet higher 
 than we were, and that we could have made that in one 
 hour more. Here we were nearly fourteen thousand feet 
 in the air, and flattered ourselves that our pluck was pretty 
 good, seeing that we neither bled at the nose, ears, or 
 mouth, all of which frequently happen to aspirants for 
 these lofty honors. 
 
 Our view from the summit was quite different from 
 that in the morning. There was a vast sea of fleecy cloud 
 beneath us, stretching out as far as the eye could carry us. 
 
HONOLULU CORRESPONDENCE. 109 
 
 These clouds were very irregular, and resembled a vast 
 plain filled with hills. The effect of the bright sun on 
 these clouds was grander than anything of the kind we 
 had ever beheld. Mauna Loa and Hallia Kela — the high- 
 est mountain of the Island of Maui, were completely 
 bathed in this sea of cloud, save a small portion of their 
 summits. They appeared like small islands resting upon 
 the bosom of the mighty deep that was lashed into a foam 
 by some Euroclidon. This scene can never be erased from 
 our memory. We never had such ideas of the power, wis- 
 dom, and goodness of God in creation as at this time. 
 
 Mauna Kea has nine peaks and two or three extinct 
 craters. These peaks are of different configurations. 
 Some are conical, some irregular oval. No one can have 
 any conception of the top of this wonderful mountain in 
 viewing it from the base or in the distance. This moun- 
 tain has been seen one hundred miles at sea. This will 
 give some idea of its height. 
 
 Our descent was much more rapid than our ascent. 
 On our return we lost our trail after reaching the woods, 
 owing to the heavy mists that closed us round. Our men, 
 who were tired and hungry, teased us every few minutes 
 to stop and camp for the night; but we could not think it 
 right to do so till we found good pasturage for our ani- 
 mals. So we traveled till between 8 and 9 o'clock at night 
 in the woods, not knowing where we were. We finally 
 came to a place that we thought would answer our pur- 
 pose. It proved to be an admirable spot. The grass and 
 the shelter were good, and we were more fortunate in find- 
 ing wood to make a fire than on the previous night. 
 There were several dead trees in the vicinity, of which 
 our men gathered sufficient to last us through the night. 
 We made beds of our saddle blankets, pillows of our sad- 
 dles, and stretched ourselves out with our feet to the fire, 
 and had it not been for a severe pain in our heads and ears 
 we should have slept most sweetly. Mr. Bingham slept but 
 little from severe pain in the eyes. Though my rest was 
 broken, I slept some. We arose at the peep of day, and 
 made preparations to proceed on our journey. The little 
 
no STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 songsters saluted us with charming music, and provoked 
 us to unite with them in praise to our great Creator. 
 
 But Mr. Bingham and myself were two hard-looking 
 spectacles ! Each was unconscious how badly the other 
 looked till informed of it. Such eyes, mouths, and faces as 
 we had ! The eyes were most completely bloodshot, the 
 lips parched and sore, and the face almost as red as a 
 cherry. They could not have been more completely blis- 
 tered had we applied strong mustard drafts to them. The 
 center of gravity inclining us strongly down the moun- 
 tain slopes, we felt no disposition to hold back much. The 
 breezes that fanned our fevered cheeks and heads felt most 
 agreeable, but did not lessen the inflammation any. It was 
 only preparing us for sleepless nights to come. We ar- 
 rived at old Father Sparkes' about 10 o'clock A. M., right 
 glad to get back. 
 
 As I had feared, so my apprehensions were realized, 
 sleepless nights followed. It was not many days till we 
 pealed off thoroughly, presenting a somewhat scaly ap- 
 pearance in the meantime. What we saw, friendly reader, 
 more than compensated us for all we suffered. Could it 
 not be ascended without such consequences? Yet it is 
 richly worth all the time, expense, and pain we endured. 
 Should any who read this sketch be inclined to ascend 
 Mauna Kea, we would advise them to provide themselves 
 goggles and take veils. In this way you can have all the 
 pleasure without the pain. We shall not charge you any- 
 thing for the suggestion, though it cost us something. 
 For the present we take our leave of the reader. 
 
 Volcano. 
 
 This is evidently one of the foothills of Mauna Loa. 
 We call it a hill, but it is in fact a mountain, yet it looks 
 like a hill compared with Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. 
 I believe its height is four thousand feet. This is the 
 largest active volcano now known — not that it throws out 
 as much lava as some others, but as regards its crater. 
 This crater at present has three rims, or a crater within 
 a crater, showing that there have been three periods of 
 great action. The first, or outer rim, is about six miles 
 
HONOLULU CORRESPONDENCE. in 
 
 in diameter, being an irregular circle. The second crater 
 is about three miles in diameter. In 1840 the innermost 
 crater, or lake of lava, was a half mile in diameter; now 
 it is not more than fifteen by twenty rods. The action in 
 1840 was much greater than now. Neither history nor 
 tradition gives us any account of the first or second crater. 
 But there is its history legibly written in the rocks and 
 its huge perimeters. There is no mistaking the fact of 
 their being craters. As evidence of this there are steam- 
 holes from which the steam issues up to this hour, every 
 here and there in the oldest of these craters, though it is 
 now grown up in many places with trees and shrubs. 
 The second crater is walled in by high bluffs of rock, 
 averaging five hundred or six hundred feet. This is 
 called the "Black Ledge." The descent to and the ascent 
 from this crater is somewhat difficult, and eminently cal- 
 culated to try one's wind. This crater resembles a vast 
 amphitheater. The flowing of the lava is very much like 
 what we have alluded to in the late lava flow from Mauna 
 Loa, with the exception that this is on a level and that 
 on an incline. Many of the same irregularities are ob- 
 served, caused by the rapid cooling on the surface. The 
 steam-holes in this second crater are numerous and quite 
 active; so much so, that they will scald and suffocate 
 one if he goes too near them. This is a matter of experi- 
 ence with us. There are also large pit-holes, where the lava 
 has fallen in some fifty and even one hundred feet deep. 
 But the present lake or innermost crater is the par- 
 ticular point of interest at this wonderful volcano. This 
 lake in shape is an oblate spheroid, walled in by a per- 
 pendicular bank of rock, or lava, averaging eighty feet 
 in height. When we stood on the margin of this bluff 
 and looked down upon the lake we were considerably dis- 
 appointed in not seeing the whole lake in commotion. It 
 was incrusted over completely, with the exception of three 
 or four small openings around the margin of the lake, 
 v/hich were in action. The redhot lava was thrown from 
 these in small quantities. The noise produced by the 
 action was very much like that of a pot of mush over 
 
ii2 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 the fire. It reminded us of our mother's mush-pot. The 
 appearance of the lake in general was an iron color just 
 before it comes to a red heat. The action of the lava 
 under the crust caused an undulating motion that was 
 quite observable. Nevertheless this crust was so thick 
 and tenacious, that we threw down large fragments of 
 rock weighing fifteen and twenty pounds without breaking 
 it. Having tarried here more than an hour, most of the 
 company suggested that we had better return to our lodg- 
 ings; but we discovered a crack directly across the nar- 
 rowest part of the lake, which had been increasing in size 
 from the time we came to the lake till that moment. We 
 remarked to the company that there was a probability 
 that the entire lake would soon break up. In twenty 
 minutes our hope was gratified by a most brilliant action ! 
 One of the openings on the margin became much more 
 active that it had been, throwing large quantities of melted 
 lava upon the crust till the weight became unsupportable. 
 This was near the fissure alluded to. A large cake or 
 fragment of the crust gave way at this point. Then this 
 crack opened, and the fiery stream issued from it as from 
 a great dragon's mouth. The whole crust was broken 
 into irregular fragments like cakes of ice, and were rap- 
 idly submerged one by one till the last one disappeared. 
 The entire lake was in commotion, like a boiling pot, in 
 five minutes from the first submerging. In the center of 
 the lake during its greatest action the lava was thrown 
 up perpendicularly fifteen or twenty feet. But a remark- 
 able fact is, that the subsidence and complete incrustation 
 of the lake was as rapid as the breaking up was. This 
 was the first piece of pyrotechny we were ever permitted 
 to witness. A dark night would have greatly enhanced 
 the splendor and grandeur of the scene. We all heartily 
 thanked Pele, the goddess of the volcano, for this demon- 
 stration. From all that we could gather from this bril- 
 liant action during our stay there, we concluded that 
 there must be a similar breaking up of this lake once in 
 every six or eight hours. The heat under the crust be- 
 comes so great that it must have relief in this way. We 
 
HONOLULU CORRESPONDENCE. 113 
 
 noticed from our lodging, which was within the rim of 
 the first crater, that once or twice during the night the 
 light at the lake was much more intense than usual. We 
 concluded that the lake was in commotion at these times. 
 This sight would cure all who are troubled with atheism 
 and skepticism. 
 
 Pele is an imaginary goddess of the Hawaiians. She 
 is the goddess of fire and all volcanoes. She is repre- 
 sented as bathing in these lakes of fire, and then coming 
 out and shaking her locks. There is an attenuated sub- 
 stance resembling gray horse hair, but much finer, formed 
 by the action of the lava thrown out in a heated con- 
 dition. This is thrown out with such force into the air, 
 and its tendency to cool very rapidly leaves it in this form. 
 This by the natives is called "Pele's hair." It is supposed 
 to fall off when she shakes her tresses after a hot bath. 
 This is, indeed, quite a curiosity. We saw it form while 
 at the lake. It is so light that the wind carries it off to 
 some distance when thrown out by the heat. It is the 
 opinion of the Hawaiians that Pele has left the Sandwich 
 Islands. I heard a missionary from Marquesas say lately 
 that she is now the principal divinity of the Marquesans. 
 They say the missionaries of the Sandwich Islands drove 
 her away from there, and she went to Marquesas. You 
 would not probably find any of the natives here who would 
 say he believed there was such a being as Pele, if asked 
 the question; still it is supposed that very many of them 
 find it difficult to divest themselves entirely of this super- 
 stition. 
 
 Having collected some specimens of lava and sulphur, 
 we bade adieu to Kilauea, probably never to see it again. 
 We came away instructed and almost overwhelmed with 
 the wisdom and power of God. This is a comment upon 
 the lake of fire and brimstone, so graphically spoken of in 
 the Apocalypse. We thank God that we were ever per- 
 mitted to behold these, which are only a part of His 
 astonishing work ! 
 
 Though Pele has left the supervision of these Hawaiian 
 fires, yet she has left an excellent substitute in the person 
 8 
 
114 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 of Rev. Titus Coan, who accompanied us and greatly in- 
 terested us by his knowledge of these volcanoes. He is 
 a regular vulcan, and happy is the explorer and visitor 
 who can secure his company and guidance: He has been 
 on the ground for the last twenty-five years, and has wit- 
 nessed all the remarkable outbreaks during that time. 
 Brother Coan is a devoted missionary, and a most com- 
 panionable man. The Lord bless him in his "work of 
 faith and labor of love" among these Islanders, and for 
 his great kindness towards the humble writer of these 
 sketches. 
 
 THE RELATION OF THE COLLEGE TO PRAC- 
 TICAL LIFE. 
 
 (Delivered by Acting President Turner at the Commencement of the 
 University of the Pacific, 1861.) 
 
 It is with considerable reluctance and embarrassment 
 that I appear before you on this occasion to fill the place 
 of your talented and absent president. The novelty of the 
 business and all embarrass me. With your indulgence, 
 however, I will promise to do the best I can. 
 
 My design is to be practical, and I have chosen as 
 my theme, The Relation of the College to Practical Life. 
 
 The present is an age of colleges. And it is an age 
 of colleges because is it an intelligent age. The college 
 is an indispensable fact and a felt power. It is a wheel 
 in the car of human progress. It is exerting a far-reach- 
 ing influence in the civil, literary, and Christian world. 
 The college is not an irrelevant something sprung into 
 existence from an inadequate cause. It is the child of 
 stern necessity. It bears a vital relation to every intelli- 
 gent age and nation. The college has been the foster 
 parent of civilization, learning, and religion from a very 
 early period. It is the nursery of the arts and sciences, 
 of learning and greatness. It would be an interesting 
 and profitable task to trace the history of the colleges 
 from the earliest accounts we have of them, and note their 
 influence on our world for good; but this would be aside 
 
RELATION OF THE COLLEGE. 115 
 
 from our present purpose. A very brief glance at their 
 history must suffice. Schools of a high grade were known 
 among the most enlightened and educated nations of 
 antiquity, and during their best and palmiest days. This 
 fact is significant, and speaks volumes in their favor. It 
 is a well established truth that all the ancients who fig- 
 ured as statesmen, orators, physicians, philosophers, and 
 poets were trained in some one of the literary institutions 
 of their day. The porch, the grove or academy, the 
 lyceum, the gymnasium, are spoken of as institutions of 
 great merit and influence. And the masters who taught 
 in these were among the great men of antiquity. Such 
 were Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Zeno, Quintilian, and 
 others. The bare mention of such names is sufficient to 
 suggest the character of their schools. Their youth were 
 started to school at the early age of seven, and kept in the 
 college or gymasium, as they called it, till twenty. The 
 branches taught were mathematics, philosophy, oratory, 
 rhetoric, logic, astronomy, poetry, painting, music, etc. 
 
 You can not refer to a great mind in ancient times 
 who was not liberally educated. The generals even had to 
 be highly educated. This was true both of Greece and 
 Rome. So it has been with nearly all the great in Church 
 and State from the days of Rome till now. The great 
 Reformers were collegians; Luther, Melanchthon, Zuin- 
 gulius, Calvin, and Knox were professors in colleges. 
 The Wesleys, Whitefield, Fletcher, Berridge, and others 
 who took the lead in the Reformation of the eighteenth 
 century were college-bred men. The fathers of our own 
 country were, with few exceptions, graduates. It is said 
 all the signers of the Declaration of Independence were 
 graduates but ten, and they were learned men. Who 
 framed our great Constitution? They were graduates. 
 Who are those who have been and are still prominent in 
 expounding it? They are graduates. Who are our Su- 
 preme Judges and ablest advocates? Most all of them 
 are graduates. So with nearly all the great statesmen 
 of England. If you turn your attention to the Christian 
 ministry the same fact confronts you. But our present 
 
n6 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 object, as already intimated, is not to give an extended 
 history of colleges; we propose noticing the wants of this 
 age, and how colleges meet these wants. The demands of 
 the present age may be seen to advantage by a brief glance 
 at the learned professions, and 
 
 The profession of medicine. The physician ought 
 to be an educated man. We live in a world where diseases 
 abound, and which may be alleviated and cured. They 
 may at least by skill be rendered tolerable. The Creator 
 has without doubt placed within our reach remedial agents 
 whereby most of the evils that afflict our world may be 
 relieved and cured, but most of these are so hidden from 
 us as to require the most thorough research in their dis- 
 covery and the nicest judgment and skill in their appli- 
 cation. And life and health, too, are boons so dear to us 
 that we can not consent to place ourselves under the treat- 
 ment of quacks and men of no intelligence and skill. And 
 so abstruse and difficult is this important science, that 
 years of patient investigation, reading, and practice are 
 requisite. Let no smatterer come into your family where 
 life is imperiled. We have it in our heart, and we may as 
 well say it, that man who writes above his office door 
 "Doctor" or "Surgeon," and has not passed the strictest 
 and most rigid examination by an accredited medical 
 Faculty, or has not spent years in the study of medicine, 
 ought to be obnoxious to the penitentiary. And that 
 medical Faculty who will grant a man a diploma and send 
 him forth to deal with our dearest earthly interests, whom 
 they would not admit into their own families under ordi- 
 nary circumstances, richly deserve the execrations of man- 
 kind and an apartment or cell hard by their pupils. This 
 profession especially calls for students; men of penetra- 
 tion, men of severe application and extensive research. 
 The reasons are obvious. How various and stubborn are 
 the diseases ! Their name is legion. They too are con- 
 stantly varying by change of climate and a thousand other 
 causes, and as a matter of course require a different treat- 
 ment according as they are thus' modified. The changes 
 and their numerous and perplexing causes demand the 
 
RELATION OF THE COLLEGE. 117 
 
 most careful observation; such a penetration and care as 
 no uncultivated and unstudious mind is prepared to be- 
 stow upon them; such as no empiric or butcher can pos- 
 sibly give. A thorough collegiate training previous to 
 the medical course is an important prerequisite for this 
 noble profession. 
 
 The legal profession is a demand of the age. This 
 profession, though it has fallen into no little disrepute, is 
 nevertheless necessary. We can not dispense with it, 
 though sadly abused. If there be such a thing as a neces- 
 sary evil, this is one. As long as there is sin in our world, 
 we shall probably stand in need of laws, administrators, 
 and advocates. It is too true that this interesting and 
 important profession has suffered greatly from those who 
 have chosen it; still it is none the less necessary on that 
 account. The best things are often abused, and this is 
 one of them. He who could suggest and inaugurate a 
 reformation of the law profession would confer a lasting 
 benefit on civil society. With all the encomiums lavished 
 on the modern bar, and some of it is doubtless deserved, 
 for its talent and learning, nevertheless there is still a 
 deal of ignorance and undisciplined talent in the profes- 
 sion. There is probably an equal or greater lack of moral 
 principle among this class. There is but one sentiment 
 prevailing as to the fact that the profession is in bad odor 
 and that there is imperative need of reformation, whatever 
 may be their views respecting the causes that have pro- 
 duced this prevalent corruption. We shall not enter into 
 this feature of the case, but would simply inquire, Can 
 there be a reform? If so, how? Such is the state of civil 
 society that there will doubtless be a demand for the pro- 
 fession until the millennial reign shall have been ushered 
 in. This none will seriously question. This necessity 
 may be seen in the astounding fact, that amid the acknowl- 
 edged general corruption in this profession men will em- 
 ploy them. And at this hour, while the corruption is the 
 most palpable and notorious, there seems to be a greater 
 demand for the services of the lawyer than heretofore. 
 This can not be because the world is retrograding in 
 
Ji8 STORY OF MY UFB. 
 
 morals, but because the public good demands the profes- 
 sion. Before we had wholesome laws and magistrates 
 men took the law into their own hands to redress their 
 grievances; now it is otherwise. This will account for 
 what seems a degeneracy; but it is only seeming. Our 
 happiness and well-being are in no little measure bound 
 up in those salutary laws enacted for the preservation of 
 the rights of the body politic, and there are so many 
 questions of a difficult nature to be settled that we need 
 professional men who shall devote themselves to these. 
 The profession is as needful as are the laws themselves. 
 We would not be understood as affirming that the low 
 cunning and dishonesty too commonly practiced in our 
 courts of justice by coarse advocates and pettifoggers are 
 necessary; but we mean that proper judges, counselors, 
 and advocates in the higher sense are absolutely requisite 
 and essential to the welfare of society as now constituted. 
 The time may come when they will not be needed ; so may 
 the time come when ministers of the Gospel will not be 
 needed; but that time is not yet. This state of things, 
 however, can only be brought about when such purity 
 and efficiency shall be rife as to render their respective 
 services unnecesary; but not till then. We would suggest 
 that the surest and most speedy way to render the pro- 
 fession of the law unnecessary, is to reform it; is to have 
 those who will honor and dignify it by carrying out its 
 true intentions. Let none decry the profession of the law 
 simply because it is abused. It is as much an institution 
 of God as is the Christian ministry, though probably more 
 abused. Any one might with equal propriety plead for 
 the abolition of the Christian ministry when they look at 
 the priest-craft that prevailed from the fifth to the seven- 
 teenth century, and that now exists in a corrupt Church 
 that we wot of. Then to find a really worthy and devoted 
 minister was the exception; corruption was the rule. We 
 think that properly regulated colleges are an important 
 and efficient instrumentality in effecting this needed re- 
 form. We are free to grant that there are other agencies, 
 but we conceive none will be more potent than the 
 
RELATION OF THE COLLEGE. 119 
 
 training received at our higher institutions of learning. 
 If any will take the pains to compare those lawyers who 
 have had a collegiate education with those who have not, 
 they will find as a general rule that the most honorable, 
 high-minded, and talented of the profession are largely 
 made up of these. The tendency of modern collegiate in- 
 struction is to make men ashamed of little and mean 
 artifices to carry their ends. We say this is the tendency 
 of college education, and the reason is obvious. The high 
 moral sentiments there inculcated go far to modify and 
 mold men in this regard. And just in proportion to the 
 spread of general intelligence will there be a call for pure- 
 minded and intelligent lawyers. These must be furnished 
 by our seminaries, colleges, and universities. We are not 
 of those who hold that the profession of the law and Chris- 
 tianity are antagonisms. They may and were designed to 
 go hand in hand. Why, what is the law? Is it not its 
 proper and peculiar province to insure and secure men in 
 their rights and privileges? Are not these the very ends 
 proposed by law? A lawyer and justice ought to be 
 synonyms; and not as many hold, that lawyer and liar 
 are convertible terms; that lawyer and justice are anti- 
 podes. No men should be purer and more high-minded 
 than lawyers. They ought to be as God designed, "a terror 
 to evil doers and a praise to them that do well." We hesi- 
 tate not to give it as our deliberate opinion that nothing 
 will contribute more surely to the bringing about a salu- 
 tary reform in the law profession than a thorough mental 
 and moral training such as most of our modern colleges 
 are capable of imparting. Let it be remembered, then, 
 that this profession, in the high sense now spoken of, is 
 a necessity, and can not be dispensed with. We must have 
 it, even though corrupt; we may, however, have it so that 
 it will be an honor and glory to the State. 
 
 Authorship has become a power and want of this age. 
 Such is the demand of this reading age that authorship 
 has fully assumed the style of a profession. The art of 
 printing has awakened such a thirst for knowledge and 
 so multiplied the number of readers, that many are devot- 
 
120 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 ing all their time and talent to this one department alone. 
 This demand is imperative. People will have books, bad 
 if they must, and good if they can. The public taste of 
 late years has been greatly vitiated. A purification of the 
 fountains of literature is seriously demanded. Most of 
 our authors must, as they have heretofore, come from our 
 colleges. These ought to send forth such numbers and 
 of such abilities as that they will erelong counteract the 
 trashy effusions that are flooding our country. We need 
 those who combine the useful, the moral, and the beau- 
 tiful in such proportions as to more than compete with 
 the immoral sentimentalism of much of our present liter- 
 ature. But the press being one of the great bulwarks 
 of our liberty, it becomes a matter of serious moment, 
 What shall be the qualifications of our editors? We need 
 learned men — men of the very highest type of morals; 
 men who will give the weight of their abilities and influ- 
 ence against all political corruption and the circulation 
 of injurious publications; men who will discountenance 
 and satirize the coarse, fictitious literature and the sickly 
 sentimentalism that are ruining so many thousands of our 
 youth annually. 
 
 An alarming feature and tendency of the larger share 
 of the modern press is the publication of these scandalous 
 and beastly prizefights and other very questionable notices 
 with such particularity as to disgust and offend even a 
 moderate literary and moral taste. These relations shock 
 and outrage our moral sentiments, while they minister to 
 the lowest and basest passions of the corrupt heart. All 
 such notices are at least a tacit eulogium on prize fights 
 and prize fighters. It is holding out strong inducements 
 to our youth to enter the ring and abandon more honor- 
 able callings. Shall the American press degrade itself 
 by condescending to this business? Shall she not wash 
 her hands of this vice? Reform in these particulars is 
 much needed. From whence are we to look for it? This 
 desideratum we humbly conceive can be in a great meas- 
 ure met by our modern Protestant colleges. If not here, 
 we know not where we may turn for relief. It is not to 
 
RELATION OF THE COLLEGE. 121 
 
 be inferred that we can hope that all who receive a thor- 
 ough mental and moral training at our institutions of 
 learning will practice what was inculcated by their teach- 
 ers; yet we may hope that a majority of them will. And 
 this will fully warrant the stress we have laid upon college 
 education. 
 
 The Christian ministry is another of the great demands 
 of the age. This calling needs no eulogium from us. Its 
 power and influence is world-wide. As a profession — if 
 v/e may call it such — it is pre-eminent; is the most honor- 
 able of all the professions. There is no question but that 
 moral purity is an indispensable prerequisite of success 
 herein; still it is no less true, that intelligence and edu- 
 cation are necessary. We are free to grant that moral 
 endowments are more important than intellectual endow- 
 ments ; but while we seek the former, we are no less bound 
 to acquire the latter. True it is a great gift to have a 
 stentorian voice; but a minister has something else to do 
 besides roaring. Any lion can do that much better. It 
 is a generally admitted fact that is it the lightning that 
 does the execution, and not the thunder. While it is true 
 that in the natural world there is no lightning without 
 some thunder, yet we are quite certain that the analogy 
 does not always hold good in the moral world. Never 
 was there such a demand for a thoroughly educated min- 
 istry as now. This demand grows out of the rapid spread 
 of general intelligence. The march of intellect is onward 
 and upward, steadily, energetically, irrevocably. There 
 is no occasion nor wisdom in ignoring this fact that so 
 continually presses itself upon our attention. The Chris- 
 tian ministry to be efficient must be above the people 
 whom they serve in point of intelligence and research, or 
 they will be doomed to preach to empty seats and inevi- 
 table defeat. The time has gone by when bluster and rant 
 will pass current for sense. We have no fault to find with 
 energy when it is properly tempered with piety, vigorous 
 thought, and a well cultivated taste. The more the better, 
 other things being equal. We must have an educated 
 ministry. We must have more bold and independent 
 
122 STORY OF MY LIFE, 
 
 thinkers, men whose thoughts sparkle and burn and force 
 conviction; men who can command respect and command 
 hearers. Where is this want to be met but in our colleges 
 and Biblical Institutes. Their rapid multiplication is a 
 sufficient proof that the Churches are waking up to this 
 subject. 
 
 Another want of this age is statesmen. We seem to 
 have fallen on perilous times in this particular. We have 
 a great country and a free government, whose interests 
 are coextensive with their magnitude and importance. 
 There are weighty interests at stake. The peace, perpe- 
 tuity, and prosperity of our Government depends upon the 
 intelligence and virtue of our people. No free government 
 can long survive without these. It is absolutely requisite 
 that we should have wise, learned, and virtuous statesmen 
 who shall legislate for us, and shall execute the laws en- 
 acted for the general welfare. The corruption, bargain 
 and sale, and the low chicanery prevalent among most 
 politicians are a burning disgrace to our free government. 
 It would be the grossest abuse of language to call a major- 
 ity of political aspirants statesmen. They are the veriest 
 demagogues, mere wire-pullers, as far below the true 
 statesman as can be well conceived. We need men of 
 master minds, extensive research, and of elevated moral 
 purity, and incapable of being bought or sold by money 
 or place, above all party considerations unworthy a genu- 
 ine patriot. The lust for place and power has become 
 overgrown, and threatens the perpetuity of our republican 
 institutions. And government patronage has become an 
 engine of power to pamper and feed this lust. This is 
 becoming a volcano that will, unless checked, burst and 
 upheave the very foundations of our civil polity, and cast 
 us down from our proud eminence into anarchy and prob- 
 ably civil war. This is one of the giant evils to be battled 
 against in our Republic, and we need a higher type of 
 statesmen than we now have to meet it. They must not 
 only be men of great grasp of intellect, but those who 
 "fear God and eschew evil." We need a revival of the 
 manly and noble virtue of the men who composed the 
 
RELATION OF THE COLLEGE. 123 
 
 Congress of '76. Such is the perplexing nature of many 
 of the great questions agitating the public mind, that 
 great wisdom, combined with a pure patriotism and fear 
 of God, are absolutely essential to the well-being and per- 
 petuity of our free institutions. No nation can long re- 
 main free and independent unless her statesmen are in- 
 telligent and virtuous. We must have a holy veneration 
 for the Bible and the Author of civil society. For this 
 intelligence and virtue we must turn our attention to the 
 common school, the college, and the Church. The hopes 
 of our country and civil institutions are in no small degree 
 bound up in our higher institutions of learning. Our 
 country depends primarily upon our common schools and 
 Evangelical Protestantism, and secondarily and largely 
 upon our Protestant colleges, where the youth of the great 
 Republic receive the higher forms of mental and moral 
 training. 
 
 The last want of the age we shall mention is the 
 teacher. If any class of men deserve the designation pro- 
 fessional, the school teacher does. In usefulness and im- 
 portance he stands next to the minister of the Gospel. 
 Their relation to our Government has not yet been fully 
 estimated. Their importance is commensurate with that 
 other great truth, that republics can not exist without 
 the people are intelligent. The school master, then, is an 
 institution. They ought all to be called professors. The 
 common school system is the legitimate offspring of our 
 free institutions; they are the forerunners of our colleges 
 and universities; they make colleges necessary. This is 
 the order : Republics must have general intelligence ; to 
 have general intelligence they must have schools; to have 
 schools they must have teachers; to have competent 
 teachers they must have colleges, where the teachers can 
 get the necessary qualifications. Modesty would dictate 
 that we should say no more on this topic. 
 
 While we have not particularly noticed the merchant, 
 the mechanic, and the farmer, they nevertheless are a 
 power in our country. They must needs be educated. 
 They can not be prevented being intelligent. Many of 
 
124 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 them will naturally and necessarily thirst after a more 
 thorough education than our common schools can furnish 
 them, and our colleges throw open their portals to them 
 equally with those of the more learned professions. We 
 have thus taken a brief glance of the wants of this age, 
 which will in some measure prepare us for our next propo- 
 sition, viz : 
 
 How our colleges meet these wants. This they do by 
 furnishing the youth of the land every facility to qualify 
 themselves for the various callings and positions in active 
 life. The college is a complete mental gymnasium, where 
 all the faculties of the mind may be salutarily developed. 
 The course of study is generally arranged with a view to 
 this ultimate object. A brief reference to the several de- 
 partments of study in these higher institutions of learning 
 may not be irrelevant, though somewhat commonplace. 
 And it is the more necessary to be somewhat particular, 
 seeing many have wholly misapprehended their true de- 
 sign and real advantages. The question is not unfre- 
 quently asked, What will be the practical benefit of this 
 and that study? Will men ever use them after they leave 
 college? This question will meet with a full answer as 
 we pass along and notice each of the departments. Let 
 it not be lost sight of, that the main design of an education 
 is to give men the perfect control and free use of their 
 mental faculties. In short, it is to teach them to think, 
 and to think vigorously and independently. Anything less 
 than this would be unworthy a college; anything more in 
 the way of mere intellectual advantage would be useless. 
 
 Take the department of mathematics. It is true there 
 are many things taught here that will be of practical bene- 
 fit in life; but vastly more that the student will never have 
 any direct use for after leaving the halls of learning. But 
 the advantages derived from the higher mathematics to 
 the student is the power of concentrating his mind on any 
 subject that may demand his attention, and holding it 
 there till it has been investigated and sounded to the bot- 
 tom. The judgment or reasoning power is specially called 
 into action in mathematics. With the bare exception 
 
RELATION OF THE COLLEGE. 125 
 
 of the teacher, engineer, and practical astronomer, these 
 higher mathematics will be of no direct practical use to 
 him, but the training will amply compensate for all the 
 pains and time employed in their study. The reasoning 
 power being a principal faculty of the mind, we can 
 scarcely lay too much stress on this important and neces- 
 sary branch of learning. 
 
 Then there is the department of langauges. Among 
 these, and the principal, are the dead languages. Prob- 
 ably not one in a hundred who study these expect to use 
 them; that is, to speak or write or even to read them after 
 having left college. Where their advantage then? We 
 will show where and how it is very great. That important 
 faculty, the memory, the treasury of all knowledge, is here 
 called into the highest activity. Some suppose that this is 
 the only faculty that is employed in the study of lan- 
 guages; but the truth is, no study calls so many faculties 
 into play and vigorous action as this. In addition to mem- 
 ory, perception, abstraction, imagination, and reason are 
 indispensably requisite. Also the sesthetical powers; that 
 is, such as are conversant with the fine arts. The science 
 of the beautiful are cultivated in this study. The nicest 
 discrimination is here cultivated. It also exercises the 
 power of concentration, but in a little different way from 
 the mathematics, but the memory in particular. To illus- 
 trate : One can not read a sentence in an unknown tongue 
 without first consulting the Lexicon and learning the 
 meaning of the word. So that in reading a chapter many 
 words must be learned and memorized; in reading a book 
 or books many thousands must be learned and remembered. 
 This calls memory into full play, and it can not be thus 
 exercised without increasing its activity or tenacity. But 
 in translating with facility there are so many faculties 
 called into exercise, that it is almost incredible how many 
 things have to be attended to by the mind at one time, and 
 how rapidly they must perform their functions in even an 
 ordinary readiness in rendering out of one tongue into 
 another. For example: The subject or noun is to be 
 sought for ; its declension and case determined ; its gender, 
 
126 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 number, and relation perceived. The verb; its conjuga- 
 tion, mood, voice, tense, number, and person settled; the 
 word or words it governs; the relative modifying words; 
 the particles with their many meanings, and nice shades 
 of meanings; the idioms and peculiarities of the language, 
 and the hundreds and even thousands of terminations of 
 nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs. This is all to be 
 done at a glance, and with the facility that a pianist passes 
 over the keys of his instrument. Such exercise long con- 
 tinued gives one great facility, so that he seems to do it 
 intuitively. Here not only the memory, but perception, 
 reason, imagination, and abstraction are called into vigor- 
 ous action, and are strengthened by every repetition. The 
 analytical powers are required here more than anywhere 
 else. Analysis is requisite at every step. It will be ob- 
 served from what has been said that the languages are 
 admirably adapted to the harmonious cultivation of more 
 faculties than any one study. It will also be seen that 
 these are the very faculties we shall be called upon to use 
 most in active life. But an additional advantage conferred 
 by the study of the dead languages is, that it gives us 
 a more thorough acquaintance with the principles and 
 genius of our own language. It aids greatly in getting 
 the nice distinctions and shades of meanings of different 
 words, and increases one's stock of words both as to quan- 
 tity and quality. These it must be granted by all are not 
 trifling considerations, especially those of cultivating the 
 memory, perceptions, and the reason. 
 
 Next is the department of natural science. The bene- 
 fits derived from this department are so palpable and so 
 practical withal, that no one scarcely questions the pro- 
 priety of the studies coming under this head. The same 
 faculties mentioned are somewhat brought into play here, 
 though much less than in the other departments. Here 
 we find chemistry, natural philosophy, geology, etc. These 
 are instructive and interesting studies, and can not be 
 faithfully pursued without great profit, both as regards 
 the mental training and the practical use most men will 
 have for them. 
 
RELATION OF THE COLLEGE. 127 
 
 Then there are the departments of mental and moral 
 science and belles-lettres. These embrace mental phi- 
 losophy, moral philosophy, criticism, elocution, rhetoric, 
 logic, etc. There the mind will find something to grapple 
 with, as well as to please and instruct. These are reckoned 
 the finishing, as it were, of college instruction. This is, 
 so to speak, the veneering and polishing. With these the 
 college hands the student over to the active and real world 
 to work his own way. In these last studies the faculties 
 of memory and judgment are particularly called into 
 action. These severer studies are admirably adapted to 
 develop the higher mental powers. 
 
 In addition to all the facilities afforded the student in 
 these departments, there are the literary societies in col- 
 leges; these are institutions of themselves. They are fur- 
 nished with good libraries. Here the young men have 
 their literary and polemical contests in debate, oration, 
 declamation, and essay. There is also a wholesome emu- 
 lation and rivalry existing between societies and students, 
 which prove a valuable stimulus in acquiring an education. 
 Now we hazard the assertion that did students not have 
 any practical use for anything contained in the whole 
 course, which is not the case, still the mental training 
 alone would be a fine acquirement. Here is the pith of the 
 matter after all: It is not how many books have been 
 skimmed over, but how many principles have been mas- 
 tered. How much muscle and nerve have been made, and 
 how much have they been enlarged and strengthened. Is 
 the mind prepared to grapple with the great principles 
 and truths underlying society? Is it prepared to meet 
 the rugged realities of active life? If so, this is suffi- 
 cient; this is all that was aimed at by the college. This 
 the modern seminary and college is prepared to do when 
 they have the co-operation of the pupil. But it is objected 
 that many pass through college and are numskulls for all 
 that. This is too true, yet it is not the fault of the college, 
 but of the student. The institution only professes to 
 furnish the facilities, and the pupil must use these, or 
 there might as well be no colleges. Colleges do not claim 
 
128 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 to furnish men with brains, as too many seem to have con- 
 ceived. They propose only to supply food and exercise 
 for the mind that wishes to apply itself. It would be just 
 as reasonable to suppose that the optician promises to fur- 
 nish eyesight to the blind, because he professes to furnish 
 glasses to assist deficient vision. No one would find fault 
 with a pair of spectacles because a man who does not 
 know his alphabet is not able to read fluently when he 
 looks through them. Their design was not to teach men 
 to read, but to assist them to see. 
 
 Again it is urged against colleges that there are many 
 men who never attended a school of a high grade who 
 far surpass some who have, both in learning and ability 
 to think. Grant it. What does it prove? That we had 
 better be without colleges ? By no means. It only proves 
 that occasionally we find one who has such application 
 and energy as to surmount the barriers and difficulties 
 in the way of getting an education. The same could have 
 been accomplished in much less time and with much less 
 labor had they enjoyed the advantages of a college edu- 
 cation. It were as if men refused to use the improved 
 instruments for cutting and threshing grain, because they 
 have the old-fashioned sickle and flail; or the sewing 
 machine, because they have a thimble and needle. It is 
 true men have cut their crops with a sickle and threshed 
 it with a flail, and carried it to the mill with grain in one 
 end of the bag and a stone in the other. The same thing 
 can be done again; but who would hazard his reputation 
 for common sense by advising a return of this primitive 
 way of doing things, and abandoning all the modern dis- 
 coveries in the useful arts and sciences? 
 
 There is also an objection urged against the time re- 
 quired to pass through a regular collegiate course. It is 
 true it takes from four to six years. Many young men are 
 impatient to enter some business or profession, and im- 
 agine that they can not afford to defer the matter so long. 
 One would think, to witness their zeal and impatience to 
 benefit the world, that they had serious apprehensions that 
 the great wheels of nature would stop, and that serious 
 
RELATION OF THE COLLEGE. 129 
 
 derangement might occur in the Church and State unless 
 their services were forthcoming. Is it not possible that 
 they may be laboring under a slight mistake as to this? 
 The sun, moon, and stars will, in all probability, keep their 
 orbits, and empires and republics may dispense with their 
 distinguished abilities for at least eight or ten years 
 longer. There are, however, some whom we despair of 
 convincing as to the truthfulness of this position. We 
 shall have to pass them over to those knowing ones of 
 whom Job speaks, "Ye are the people, and wisdom shall 
 die with you." 
 
 A man who enters a profession without a thorough edu- 
 cation will be like a mechanic who is compelled to work in 
 a narrow apartment with but few and dull tools. It is 
 true he may do something by hard blows, but at best it is 
 but bungling work. It is really an economy of time to 
 spend the required period in some college, and become 
 thoroughly furnished for the business of life. With proper 
 training more efficient good can be accomplished in one 
 year, than in three without the required foundation. If 
 a man would be a workman that needeth not to be ashamed 
 let him give himself earnestly and persistently to a thor- 
 ough system of mental education. Let him drill himself 
 as the soldier does; let him exercise himself regularly 
 and systematically as the wrestler and pugilist do if he 
 would succeed. Let all the mental faculties be in a vigor- 
 ous and healthful condition. As good a capital as a young 
 man needs in this world is a well-disciplined mind. He 
 can soon gather matter; nay, he can create matter, and 
 will then be prepared to use it efficiently. We have taken 
 this somewhat particular view of college training, and 
 yet we have spoken of but a small part of what might be 
 said of the advantages of such a course. Add to this the 
 stimulus of a noble emulation which is awakened by the 
 contact of mind with mind, and you have an additional 
 argument for colleges. This is a kind of friction or ex- 
 citant which becomes one of the surest means of success, 
 and that wouV not be likely to be enjoyed outside of the 
 college and its surroundings. 
 
 9 
 
i 3 o STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 In conclusion upon this subject, allow me to repeat 
 and impress the principal thought of this whole subject 
 upon your minds, young gentlemen and ladies ! You are 
 here not simply to stuff yourselves with Greek and Latin 
 and the higher mathematics, for which you may never 
 have any immediate practical use, but you are here to 
 master principles, to learn to think. A man is educated 
 who has learned to think; he is not who can not think 
 vigorously and independently, it matters not how much 
 of the classics and mathematics he may have gone over. 
 Do not forget this simple fact; it is not the amount of 
 food the human stomach takes in that benefits the body, 
 but the amount it thoroughly digests and assimilates. It 
 is not the quantity that one reads that does him good, 
 but the amount he can digest and appropriate. One chap- 
 ter of Latin or Greek thoroughly analyzed and mastered 
 is better than a volume superficially read. One propo- 
 sition mastered as to its principles is better than the whole 
 of Euclid recited after the parrot style. Modern colleges 
 afford men all the facilities for this thorough mental train- 
 ing if they will but use them. While it is not true that all 
 or most of the studies are of little practical benefit to the 
 student after having left college, yet we would lay par- 
 ticular emphasis on the fact that the discipline is altogether 
 paramount to the mere knowledge acquired. We are will- 
 ing to take the ground that the mind which has submitted 
 to the rigid exercises requisite to pass through the higher 
 mathematics, Greek, Latin, Chemistry, Rhetoric, and 
 Logic, must be educated in the highest sense. If the prin- 
 ciples of these are mastered, we care not whether one fact 
 has been retained for future use or not. If the power to 
 think, and to think vigorously and efficiently, has been 
 acquired, this is the chief object in an education. 
 
 A few words to these young men and ladies about to 
 leave us. We need not say that we feel solicitous for your 
 welfare and success in active life. You are going into a 
 world of stubborn realities; not less stubborn than many 
 of the subjects with which you have grappled in your col- 
 lege course. Do not fall into the very common mistake 
 
LOST LIGHT OF HEATHEN NATIONS. 131 
 
 that your days of study are over. They have just begun 
 in good earnest. If you have realized the true design 
 of education, you are now prepared to study in the true 
 sense of the word. Resolve to play the true scholar. Let 
 your aims be pure and elevated, and pursue your purpose 
 with unwearied devotion and perseverance. Whatever 
 professions, young gentlemen, you may enter, resolve to 
 be more than mere novices, and rise superior to all mean 
 condescensions. Never permit yourselves to do an un- 
 worthy act for party or other ends. Respect yourselves, 
 and you will not fail to win the confidence and respect 
 of others. You may do your Alma Mater signal service 
 by dignifying yourselves. And to these young ladies we 
 would say we have a right to claim and to expect that the 
 full weight of your influence and talents will be given to 
 true education. We know in this particular our expecta- 
 tions are not groundless. This institution sends you forth, 
 young gentlemen and ladies, with her lessons and influ- 
 ences to bless the world. May a good Providence attend 
 you through life ! We bid you Godspeed and abundant 
 success. Let us as your teachers assure you that we shall 
 always take unmingled pleasure in learning of your pros- 
 perity. Our prayers and best wishes go with you. 
 
 THE LOST LIGHT OF HEATHEN NATIONS. 
 
 Sermon. 
 
 God has given to all nations at some time in their 
 history light sufficient to have guided them aright, and if 
 they are without it now it is because they have lost it or 
 perverted it. (Rom. i, 18-25.) 
 
 When I was a boy in the Sunday-school, the com- 
 monly accepted opinion of the religious world was, that 
 the nations of the world called "heathen" were receiving 
 the religion of the Bible for the first time in the last, say 
 two hundred years. That ever since the flood the great 
 mass of mankind, except the Jews, were without a Divine 
 
132 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 revelation, without any knowledge of the true God, or 
 redemption from their besotted and deplorable moral con- 
 dition. And this opinion obtains to a large extent even 
 to-day among many otherwise intelligent people, that God 
 had for some reason not explained left them in this sad 
 moral plight. 
 
 This view of the moral condition of the heathen world 
 that I had in common with Christians of my early man- 
 hood never quite satisfied my mind, and during my resi- 
 dence at the Sandwich Islands it gave me great concern 
 as a moral and religious question. My sense of justice 
 revolted at what I saw and read of their condition as 
 far back as the times after the flood. I could not reconcile 
 this state of things with God's goodness, justice, and im- 
 partiality. I could see the wisdom and benevolence of 
 carrying the precious Gospel of Jesus Christ to these be- 
 nighted people; but why they should be left these long 
 centuries in this wretched condition I could not compre- 
 hend, and was ill at rest. If a revelation was imperatively 
 needed by the race, it was needed by all, and not by so 
 small a fraction as had it. 
 
 One day while seriously revolving this subject in my 
 mind, I felt strongly inclined to ask God for light, and 
 such light as would vindicate His goodness and justice 
 alike. I opened my Bible and fell on my knees, and the 
 first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans was what my 
 eyes fell on. It was here that a satisfactory solution o£ 
 this whole problem was revealed to me that gave me as 
 much joy and satisfaction as ever my conversion gave 
 me, and that was not small I can assure you. I am pleased 
 to call this a revelation by interpretation. 
 
 With this preliminary statement of the case I proceed 
 to lay down this proposition and attempt its elucidation, 
 that God has given to every nation or people at some time 
 a Divine revelation over and above what they can gather 
 from the book of nature sufficient to have guided them in 
 their duties to Him and their felloiv-men; and if they are 
 not in possession of that light now, it is because they have 
 lost it or perverted it. 
 
LOST LIGHT OF HEATHEN NATIONS. 133 
 
 My main proof for the argument will be drawn from 
 the Bible. It is the oldest Book in the world. It is the 
 best established Book in the world. It contains the most 
 important truths and teachings in the world. It has done 
 more for the enlightenment and civilization of mankind 
 than all the books of the world. It has given the best 
 civil code of the world, as the most enlightened nations 
 are proof by their adoption of that code. It has given the 
 world its acknowledged finest literature. It has given 
 the world the highest order of moral heroes that it has 
 ever had. It has given the world the only spotless and 
 sinless character it has known since the fall; namely, 
 the Nazarene, "the chief among ten thousand and the 
 altogether lovely." This ought to settle the character 
 and quality of its testimony. 
 
 I feel a large degree of confidence in the ground I 
 propose to traverse, because of the character of this his- 
 tory. Moses is credited as the author of the Book of 
 Genesis. Whoever wrote it had the historic quality. It 
 is straightforward and direct. It claims that God in creat- 
 ing man pronounced the work "very good;" good as to 
 His purpose, and good as to man's innocency. This is 
 what we should expect from an Almighty and benevolent 
 Creator. That this being called man stands at the head 
 of creation, and is put under moral law, under the most 
 favorable environments, with all the information neces- 
 sary to his knowledge of his obligations to his Creator 
 and to his fellow-beings no one can doubt. He was clearly 
 and definitely told the consequences of obedience and dis- 
 obedience to this moral law. How long he maintained 
 his innocence we need not now ask; but the fact of his 
 lapse into sin is clearly and sadly told. If Archbishop 
 Usher's chronology is not at fault, which it probably is, 
 a period of some sixteen centuries was used by God to 
 reclaim His fallen subjects, but with comparatively little 
 avail, until God was under the moral necessity of sweeping 
 the race off the face of the earth with a disastrous flood, 
 with the exception of Noah and his family. The point I 
 make is, that there was a number of good men and fam- 
 
i 3 4 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 ilies like Enoch and Noah, preachers of righteousness, 
 who were loyal to God's moral government and kept alive 
 and illustrated the principles of righteousness and the 
 moral light God had given to man at his advent into this 
 world. 
 
 The next important fact of history was the saving of 
 Noah and his family, to give the race a second probation 
 under a religious Teacher in possession of the original 
 light God had given at the beginning and the warning of 
 the terrible catastrophe of the Flood. 
 
 If the sons and family of Noah are the new progenitors 
 of the coming peoples of the world, the case is clear that 
 this family possessed all the light that the first pair had 
 and transmitted it to their posterity with probably the 
 additional light of experience. 
 
 Among the immediate descendants of Noah on the male 
 side we have the names of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 
 The present races or peoples of the world are the de- 
 scendants of these branches. Intelligent genealogists have 
 undertaken to inform us what portions of the globe are 
 the lineal descendants of these branches, so that I need 
 not take time to speak of that fact here, only to say that 
 at the confusion of the language at the tower of Babel 
 we learn from the historian that degeneracy of morals had 
 again manifested itself with the rapid increase of the popu- 
 lation, and that the confounding the language and the 
 dispersion were intended of God to check the growing 
 profligacy and corruption, and also the spread of the 
 knowledge of God's moral government would almost nec- 
 essarily follow with the dispersed people. In this dis- 
 cussion it is well to remember that we are stepping over 
 long stretches of history, and can only in the compass 
 of this paper touch upon the salient points, or, if you 
 please, the mountain peaks of this historic argument. Per- 
 mit me to call your attention to the patriarch Job as an 
 illustrative argument. There is no doubt that this is a 
 very ancient history. He doubtless is a descendant of 
 one branch of Noah's family, and his country is either 
 Persia or Arabia. In reading the Book of Job one must 
 
LOST LIGHT OF HEATHEN NATIONS. 135 
 
 be struck with the sublimity of the language and the ele- 
 vated conception he had of the moral government of God. 
 The inquiry naturally arises, when did Job get this knowl- 
 edge? He was in possession of it to a degree that sur- 
 prises us when we consider the degeneracy of his times. 
 It requires no stretch of the imagination to trace it by 
 tradition to Noah and his posterity. God has had all along 
 the history of nations a few exceptional witnesses of His 
 truth among degenerate peoples, who once had the truth 
 and light, but have abused it. 
 
 Dr. Bushnell, somewhere in a sermon or a lecture, has 
 made a statement of a woman in "Darkest Africa," who 
 had a most remarkable influence and power over the bar- 
 barous tribes when the first missionaries arrived there; 
 that was a great surprise to the missionaries. She was 
 a woman of high moral endowments, and would have 
 done credit to any modern Christian. She used her kind 
 offices to reconcile warring tribes in her day with signal 
 effect. How came she to get this power? Doubtless by 
 Divine tradition from some of the descendants of Noah's 
 family. So we have a pertinent and forcible suggestion 
 in this case of how it comes to pass that in the religions 
 of India and China we find notions that are quite like the 
 religion of the Old and New Testaments. 
 
 Take the Hebrew people, who, more than other nations, 
 have maintained in a long succession of centuries the 
 depository of religious knowledge with fewer serious 
 breaks or lapses than other nations, as was the case of 
 Abraham and his immediate descendants. I want to speak 
 of Joseph in Egypt as an important historic fact in its 
 bearing on this argument. Whoever of the sons of Noah 
 are the progenitors of the Egyptian people it is not essen- 
 tial to decide now ; but it is certain at the time of Joseph's 
 life in Egypt, there was a great and serious corruption 
 of the faith and practice of Noah and his sons. While 
 Egypt was far advanced in knowledge of the arts and 
 sciences of that day, they had fallen into the grossest 
 idolatry and lascivious living among her rulers and most 
 cultured classes. In studying the history of Joseph in 
 
136 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 Egypt we are liable to fall into the common opinion, that 
 God's permission of Joseph's bondage in that country was 
 mainly to provide for the people of Canaan at the time 
 of the seven years' famine; but I suspect that a more 
 rational interpretation of that remarkable Providence was 
 the restoration of the religious light they had lost, the 
 almost total eclipse of the Hebrew religion so beautifully 
 exemplified in the life and spirit of Joseph. The residence 
 of Joseph and his posterity in Egypt for a period of some 
 four hundred years with the adoption and training of 
 Moses, was a fitting education of that nation of God's 
 purpose. 
 
 How persistent and careful God has been all along the 
 history of the world to keep alive by His judgments and 
 providences to restore the light that has been carelessly 
 and deliberately lost by the nations who once had it ! How 
 next to impossible it must have been for the Israelites 
 to live in Egypt four hundred years without deeply show- 
 ing that proud nation of the marked contrast in the two 
 religions thus exemplified before them. The Pharaoh of 
 Joseph's time was profoundly impressed by it, and pro- 
 moted Joseph to the second place in the kingdom. Then 
 the Pharaoh of Moses' time, when the Israelites had mul- 
 tiplied to two or three millions, had a most remarkable 
 experience in God's method in breaking up the slavery of 
 that people under the leadership of Moses, who refused 
 "to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter," but pre- 
 ferred to suffer affliction with the people of God than to 
 enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season and wear a crown 
 and wield an earthly scepter. This was an exhibition of 
 self-surrender so seldom seen in this world, that rather 
 than surrender his religious principles taught by his He- 
 brew ancestors, he was willing to suffer banishment. Thus 
 God was shedding moral and religious light upon a whole 
 nation, and that the most advanced nation of that age in 
 literary culture, for it is particularly mentioned in a later 
 age, "that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the 
 Egyptians and was mighty in words and deeds." 
 
 Another link in the chain of evidence that God has 
 
LOST LIGHT OF HEATH UN NATIONS. 137 
 
 given religious and supernatural light, is found in the 
 history of the Ninevites and the Babylonians. The case 
 of Jonah's being sent to Nineveh to warn her of her sins 
 and departure from the light and truth she once had. 
 Jonah did not relish the mission on which God sent him, 
 as we well know; but he, attempting to run from duty, 
 reconsidered the matter, and went and warned Nineveh 
 unless she repented God would destroy her "in forty 
 days." She repented. The king commanded a public fast 
 to be kept throughout his whole kingdom. Where did she 
 get a knowledge of a religious fast, but from her former 
 religious observances, and from which she had fearfully 
 backslidden? (See the account.) 
 
 Take the Babylonian captivity of the Jews for a period 
 of seventy years. God in disciplining the Jews, who were 
 the depository of religious knowledge in an eminent sense, 
 were many of them, as in the cases of Daniel and his com- 
 panions, loyal and faithful to their religious vows, and 
 profoundly impressed themselves on the rulers by their 
 adherence to the Hebrew religion, as we know. It is gen- 
 erally believed by eminent scholars, that the Ninevites 
 and Babylonians are the descendants of Shem, and re- 
 tained some of the light of their illustrious ancestor, 
 though they had grievously departed from his true light. 
 Thus we have another striking example of God's care to 
 restore light that had been lost by culpable neglect and 
 deliberate disobedience, by His providential chastisement 
 of His professed people in their sore and long captivity. 
 Let it also be remembered that many of the captives never 
 returned to their own land, but remained in Babylon and 
 Chaldea of choice, as a warning to Babylon of the dire 
 consequences following a misuse of God-given light and 
 truth. The dispersion of the Jewish people for two thou- 
 sand years is a monumental warning to Christian nations 
 against disloyalty to God's revelations of light and truth. 
 They are without a national government even to this 
 day, and like the bush of Moses, burning but not con- 
 sumed. The doctrine of the true God is held unflinch- 
 ingly to this day among the people with whom they live. 
 
138 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 This brings us down to the days and teaching of Jesus 
 Christ, who is God's highest supernatural revelation to 
 our world, and whom Nicodemus declared to be "the 
 Teacher come from God." 
 
 I select the parable of the Prodigal Son as an un 
 answerable argument of my proposition of supernatural 
 light being given to all nations at some time in their his- 
 tory, and their loss of it the result of their deliberate 
 disobedience and neglect of said light. 
 
 I am warranted in saying that the purpose of Christ 
 in the use of this beautiful and forcible parable, as voiced 
 by nearly all commentators, was to enforce the truth that 
 all nations have had all necessary moral and religious 
 light given them. That is, the older son represents the 
 Jewish nation, and the younger son the Gentile or heathen 
 nations, as to God's supernatural revelation to the world. 
 If this was Christ's primary purpose in its use, or its main 
 purpose, it follows inevitably and logically that the younger 
 son had all the religious light and benefit of that home 
 that the older son had, and they started out in life with 
 equal opportunities; but the younger son spent his sub- 
 stance in riotous living and profligacy till he reached the 
 degradation and pitiable conditions of a voluptuous spend- 
 thrift. Then if this is what Christ meant by the younger 
 son, that he represents the Gentile or heathen nations, then 
 it absolutely teaches that God has given all nations suffi- 
 cient light to have guided them, and if they are without it 
 now it is because they have lost it, and aside from this 
 view the parable is meaningless. 
 
 Let us now turn to the first chapter of Paul's letter 
 to the Romans, and see if his argument does not tally 
 with the proposition laid down and elucidated by the fore- 
 going facts of Sacred History. 
 
 Now let it be remembered that Paul is writing to a 
 Church that had recently been converted from heathenism, 
 and heathenism of the grossest kind of abominations, and 
 vices scarcely to be mentioned in a promiscuous assembly. 
 He was speaking to those who knew what he was writing 
 about, and did not admit of debate. They were terrible 
 
LOST LIGHT OF HEATHEN NATIONS. 139 
 
 and notorious truths he mentioned. How great must have 
 been the moral elevation they had fallen from, as great as 
 that of the younger son in the parable. Now let us follow 
 the steps of his argument link by link to its consummate 
 close, and note his complete and triumphant vindication 
 of God's goodness, faithfulness, and impartiality to the 
 race of mankind in His revelations. The revelation here 
 made to man is a double revelation by nature, and above 
 nature. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven 
 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who 
 hold the truth in unrighteousness." (Verse 18.) ''The 
 displeasure of God is revealed from heaven against all 
 ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." These two 
 forms of wrong-doing of men comprehend all forms of 
 sin known to men. Man was made in the image and like- 
 ness of God, and He gave a moral law of strict right and 
 wrong, and revealed it to all men "from heaven" over and 
 above what they might gather from the book of nature, 
 "who hold the truth in unrighteousness." This revelation 
 is here called "God's truth," and the implication is that 
 this truth may be perverted or mixed with error or un- 
 righteousness of men. "Who hold the truth in unright- 
 eousness" is a strong putting of the case. Paul charges 
 men with this crime when he says, "They changed the 
 truth of God into a lie or idolatry." Men in power, in the 
 past and the present, have been known to connive at sin 
 and wrong-doing for some personal advantage. If the 
 truth had not been revealed to the world, men could not 
 have made a wrong use of it; they could not change what 
 they had not. 
 
 Paul goes on to say (verse 19) : "Because that which 
 may be known of God is manifest in them." A conscience 
 or knowledge of right and wrong is inborn in man, as 
 certainly as instinct is inborn in animals, "for God hath 
 shown it unto them." Verse 20: "For the invisible things 
 of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, 
 being understood by the things that are made, even His 
 eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without ex- 
 cuse." Since God gave man a moral or religious nature, 
 
140 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 and then gave a law suited to that nature with all needed 
 information concerning its use, if he goes wrong he "is 
 without excuse," be he heathen or Christian. If God had 
 not given the Gentiles equal opportunities with the Jews, 
 they certainly would have been excusable had no such 
 light been given, for he here affirms that the heathen "are 
 without excuse." 
 
 It is clearly affirmed, too, by the apostle with such a 
 nature and endowments, "man as a moral being, made in 
 the image of God," and a Divine revelation added, that he 
 is competent to apprehend in a large measure "the invis- 
 ible things of God, His eternal power and Godhead," so 
 that if he will not use these powers or endowments, or 
 abuses them, he will be "without excuse." The eye 
 matches the light no more certainly than that man was 
 made to know God. If he holds the truth in unrighteous- 
 ness, or changes the truth of God into a lie, he is account- 
 able. Remember the younger son in the parable was not 
 excusable, nor did he attempt to excuse himself for his 
 wayward and sinful course; but met his father with the 
 confession, "I have sinned against heaven and before thee, 
 and am not worthy to be called thy son;" so we find the 
 heathen nations when coming to themselves, as it was, 
 with the prodigal; so the heathen with the return of the 
 abused light are glad to return to their Father's house, 
 which they had deliberately left in the dark past. 
 
 Verses 21-23: "Because when they knew God they 
 glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but be- 
 came vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart 
 was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they 
 became fools and changed the glory of the uncorruptible 
 God into an image made like a corruptible man, and to 
 birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things." 
 
 Here is a true history of idolatry. Here is its Genesis, 
 revealed in fie conduct of men ; a religion perverted from 
 what was originally pure and Godlike. It is important 
 to keep in mind that Paul is speaking to a Church re- 
 cently rescued from base idolatry. It was not a debatable 
 question; all that was needed was to state the facts with 
 
LOST LIGHT OF HEATHEN NATIONS. 141 
 
 which they were familiar and conversant. Some of these 
 converts were intelligent and cultured Romans; and had 
 Paul not stated the palpable facts of history they would 
 have confronted him. Nor did any of the philosophers 
 of that day, so far as appears, undertake to refute his 
 arraignment of idolatry as to its origin. It must be clearly 
 apparent that the learned and logical apostle of the Gen- 
 tile Church takes decisive ground against the Darwinian 
 theory so much lauded by the materialistic philosophy of 
 the present day. It looks a little as though he anticipated 
 this philosophical heresy so dogmatically stated and urged 
 on a very slender probability. It has the appearance not 
 a little like a philosophical idolatry, in the light of the 
 experience of at least the last six thousand years, in na- 
 ture's uniform and invariable operation of law in the ani- 
 mal kingdom. You can see that Paul has no sympathy 
 with the evolution theory that Christianity is the outcome 
 after millions of ages from gross idolatry and from the 
 senseless myth of paganism. He stands squarely on the 
 Scriptural doctrine, that man was created in the image of 
 God, and that he fell from that high estate deliberately 
 and knowingly, and is now under a scheme of redemption 
 and recovery under Jesus Christ. This is the only sys- 
 tem of evolution for the lapsed condition of the race 
 that he stands on. The Bible declaration that man is a 
 fallen being, is amply and demonstrably proved by the his- 
 tory of nations and individuals in the last sixty centuries; 
 that is, from a state of innocence to a state of sin and 
 vicious practices, is as true and certain as sunlight and 
 darkness. We do not need a Bible to prove this self- 
 evident truth. Profane history is in perfect accord with 
 the Bible. The rise and fall of nations, and the most 
 virtuous and cultured, are in evidence of the sorrowful 
 truth. If only it were true of barbarous and uncivilized 
 nations it might be questioned, but the foremost nations of 
 the past for culture and wealth are no exception. Instance 
 Egypt, Babylon, Carthage, Rome, and the classic Greece, 
 after a proud golden age went down to ignominy and dis- 
 grace. In more modern times we have Spain, who three 
 
142 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 hundred years ago was one of the first, foremost, and cul- 
 tured nations of the world, as a world power, but has gone 
 down to a third-rate power. Do you ask the cause ? The 
 answer is at hand, corruption in Church and State. 
 Drunken with power and disregard of righteousness, 
 France a century ago came near the verge of destruction 
 by her infidelity and vices. Love of power and lust of 
 gold give birth to luxurious living and vicious indulgence, 
 and are the sure precursors of decay and death, or we 
 greatly misinterpret history. "Righteousness exalteth a 
 nation, but sin is a reproach to any people," is a Bible 
 statement that is as true and certain as gravitation. How 
 slow the world is to accept this well-established truth, 
 applicable alike to nations and individuals ! 
 
 A few months ago a prominent Unitarian minister by 
 the name of Savage, who has accepted evolution as taught 
 by Haeckel and Spencer, made this public announcement : 
 That the fall of man, as taught in the Bible, is an absurd 
 fable, without any foundation in fact. Any man who de- 
 liberately makes such a declaration in the light and glare 
 of human history and in the face of the facts that daily 
 stare him in the face, must "love darkness rather than 
 light," because he has lost, his way through spiritual 
 blindness; like a bat or owl he sees best in the dark. 
 What is the meaning of our courts of justice, our 
 jails and penitentiaries, and the slums of vice? The 
 inmates of these were a short time ago innocent children 
 in our homes, in homes of civilization and culture, some 
 of them Christian homes. What has happened to these 
 innocent boys and girls, that we should say they are fallen 
 men and women? And all this is occurring hourly and 
 daily in Christian America, where such activity is mani- 
 fested by Christian men and women and philanthropists 
 to throw around them safeguards to prevent them from 
 going to destruction; and then after they have so sadly 
 fallen are putting forth almost superhuman efforts to 
 recover them. Is it possible, in the glare of such stub- 
 born facts, any sane man or professed minister of Christ 
 can believe that the fall of man is a fiction of a disordered 
 
LOST LIGHT OF HEATHBN NATIONS. 143 
 
 brain ? He is certainly amenable to the charge, that dark- 
 ness is preferable to daylight facts. The history of this 
 world, so far as it reaches back and has been preserved, 
 has been largely a history of sad and terrible relapses, 
 both of nations and individuals. 
 
 It is mightily in the face of the Darwinian theory in 
 its negative aspects. I can accept heartily the Theistic 
 Evolution of the Bible as a reformatory measure for a 
 disordered world made so by sin; it teaches the survival 
 of the fittest, but is a fitness made so by righteousness and 
 regeneration. 
 
 I feel impelled just here to call your attention to a fact 
 that came under my personal observation. About thirty 
 years ago, while traveling my district in California, I was 
 overtaken by night in a wilderness or forest, and came to 
 a log house occupied by a white man and Digger Indian 
 woman. They had three or four children, and were living 
 as man and wife. I asked for lodging for the night for 
 myself and horse. He gruffly replied that he guessed I 
 might stay. As he stood in the doorway with the light 
 from within falling upon him, I thought he was about the 
 hardest specimen of a white man that it ever was my mis- 
 fortune to look on. His hair was long and shaggy, his 
 person filthy; his clothing was in keeping with his personal 
 appearance. I think a well or poorly dressed ape would 
 have been a good portrait of this man. Of course, it did 
 not speak well 'of his intelligence, and I would not expect 
 any more from him than I would from any very common 
 Digger Indian. Indeed, the Indian woman, who was 
 dressed in a modest calico dress, in personal appearance 
 was his superior. While he was caring for my horse I 
 happened to see a paper on a table in the room. I was 
 surprised to find a paper under such surroundings, and 
 read while the woman was preparing some supper for me. 
 The paper was printed in Boston, and its title was, as I 
 now remember, The Truth Seeker. I was curious to 
 know how this could be. It was an infidel sheet, and I 
 found it was bitter against the Bible and Christianity gen- 
 erally. As I continued to read my eye fell on an article 
 
144 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 from Colonel Robert Ingersoll, and it proved to be a 
 characteristic letter from him against the Government of 
 the United States for forbidding the transmission of ob- 
 scene literature through the mails. I did not wonder much 
 at this coming from the Colonel. But how such persons 
 as the head of this family could be interested or able to 
 comprehend the questions discussed in this paper excited 
 my curiosity. This man, after the fashion of illiterate 
 persons, was profane and vulgar even to disgust. But as 
 I continued to pass that way frequently, I made it my busi- 
 ness to inquire of others about this man, and found to 
 my very great surprise that he was a graduate either of 
 Harvard or Yale. I am not positive which. This an- 
 nouncement explained the presence of that paper. It was 
 further intimated that he had been considered a bright 
 man, and a man of some promise. The supposition of 
 some was that he was a fugitive from justice, and was 
 sailing under an alias, and to conceal himself he had 
 chosen this isolated life to escape the clutches of the law. 
 Whatever the fact was of his present degradation and 
 manner of life, this case shows how short a time is neces- 
 sary to devolnte a man who doubtless was once the pride 
 and hope of some fond father and mother to the level of 
 a degraded Digger Indian. A blasted reputation of an 
 educated American citizen to nearly the state of monkey- 
 hood in less than thirty years ! These significant facts in 
 life completely shatter the theory that long ages are neces- 
 sary to develop or produce a species or tribe. Nations and 
 individuals rise quickly and go down quickly compared to 
 the Darwinian theory. An abandoned sinner under the 
 gospel may be and is often saved in an hour. 
 
 Paul's life as a persecutor and murderer was changed 
 suddenly, and the current turned in the direction of saving 
 men and not destroying them. This is Theistic Evolu- 
 tion, and the only evolution worthy of claiming man's 
 supreme attention. 
 
 I now feel strongly inclined to attempt a comparison 
 of the theory of Darwin and the Bible account of man's 
 Genesis. Mr. Darwin's maturer views, for he at first 
 
LOST LIGHT OF HEATHEN NATIONS. 145 
 
 admitted God started the race with one or two beings, 
 may be summed up in a few words; namely, the origin of 
 all animals and man came from a small protoplasm or 
 germ, Huxley called it sea-ooze, something resembling 
 frog spawn; all living animals of past ages and present 
 came from this original spawn or ooze, and through a long 
 series of evolutions; the thousands and probably millions 
 of species of known and unknown tribes of living animals 
 came from this one germ or protoplasm; and in the final 
 triumphant outcome, we have an intelligent, accountable, 
 and immortal being called man, "little lower than the 
 angels of God." To accomplish this marvelous and tran- 
 scendent feat cost the Creator of our world millions of 
 ages to consummate this work. You observe He only had 
 to create one germ or protoplasm. You see how much 
 was contained in that single little lump of sea-ooze to 
 people this world for millions of ages with living beings 
 and all the generations of men who have come and gone 
 under the law of "the survival of the fittest." There 
 must have been a tremendous waste of time and life in 
 these ages; and if all this was done for the sole and im- 
 portant purpose of giving the world a perfect man, or 
 specimen of God's skill and power, it seems a great waste 
 of precious time and of infinite suffering of innocent ani- 
 mals and men, who had not the strength to cope with their 
 stronger enemies because only the fit can survive on this 
 theory or ought to survive. I am somewhat dazed with 
 this puzzle of Darwin and Hackel. If some skilled me- 
 chanics proposed to build a splendid engine that in the 
 coming century could haul a thousand cars over plains 
 and mountains, should select a lump of iron and begin 
 by making a little whirligig, and run through all the little 
 machines imaginable that had no resemblance to the one 
 intended ultimately, for his final purpose and reason that 
 these antecedent steps or evolutions were absolutely neces- 
 sary to the perfect machine, would such a procedure re- 
 dound to the inventor's honor, or his skill be enhanced 
 in the esteem of intelligent men, if it were admitted that 
 the inventor's ability and skill were equal to the task with- 
 10 
 
146 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 out all this roundabout and endless and needless expend- 
 iture of time and waste of material ? And add to this that 
 in carrying out this scheme millions of lives had to 
 be sacrificed in order to get the ultimate perfect engine 
 that could have been built in a less time by a more and 
 direct procedure. I suspect that no candid or honest evo- 
 lutionist would or could be found who would take the 
 ground that the Creator of our world had not the power 
 to have created each known species of living animals 
 and man as we now find them in an immeasurably shorter 
 time than they claim that their theory requires, had He 
 so determined. We have our choice left us to accept 
 Moses' account or Darwin's in the light of God's pro- 
 cedure in the last six thousand years. 
 
 The evolution theory is an astounding reflection on 
 the Creator's wisdom, skill, ability, and humane character. 
 I do not wonder that Haeckel, the atheist, in his latest 
 book calls our world in the light of his philosophy, "The 
 Puzzle of the Universe." He will never be able to solve 
 it by his theory, and make it plain by positive and demon- 
 strative facts by the inductive method. 
 
 The more I dwell upon the Darwinian hypothesis in 
 the light and experience of the last sixty centuries the more 
 it looks like a stupendous superstition. It seems built on 
 a doubtful and suspicious probability, to say the most of it. 
 I was charged four or five years ago in this city (Spokane) 
 by a certain Unitarian clergyman with whom I had a dis- 
 cussion, with "camping with Moses." I plead guilty, and 
 feel greatly honored by the high compliment. I am glad 
 to camp with Moses, and such scholars as Moses and Paul. 
 Moses graduated in the first university of cultured Egypt, 
 and Paul was a pupil of the celebrated "Gamaliel, a Doctor 
 of the Law." It is very doubtful if they have any peers 
 in this day and age. 
 
 When Paul visited Athens, the literary and scientific 
 center of classic Greece, the Epicurean and Stoic phi- 
 losophers "encountered him," for all the Athenians and 
 strangers which were there (probably from the literary 
 centers) spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell 
 
LOST LIGHT OF HEATHEN NATIONS. 147 
 
 or hear some new thing. "Then Paul stood in the midst 
 of Mars' Hill and said: "Ye men of Athens, I perceive 
 that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed 
 by and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this 
 inscription, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye 
 ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you. God that 
 made the world and all things therein, seeing He is Lord 
 of heaven and earth." (Acts xvii, 16-24.) 
 
 These philosophers were very much like such phi- 
 losophers as Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, and other repre- 
 sentative scientists, who spent their time in nothing else 
 than "evolution," so that they have erected an altar to 
 Agnosticism, which may fitly be called "their Unknown 
 God," whom they worship. This is their idol. This lan- 
 guage seems almost prophetic of our times. 
 
 An exclusive study of matter strongly leads to skepti- 
 cism as to a spiritual world, not necessarily, but such is 
 painfully true with many otherwise worthy and honorable 
 men, men who have contributed valuable knowledge to 
 the world. What greatly surprises me is, that so many 
 clergymen to-day are running after this fad lest they be 
 classed with those "who are camping with Moses and 
 Paul." There has been so much said and written about 
 "philosophic culture and scholarship" in connection with 
 Evolution, that one might begin to think that nobody but 
 evolutionists were scholars; but I can assure you that 
 there are more than seven thousand who have not bowed 
 the knee to this new Baal. I am proud to number myself 
 among this minority, if it be in fact a minority. 
 
 Had I time I could bring valuable information from 
 recent explorations from Nineveh and Babylon in archae- 
 ology confirmatory of the Bible account of Creation and 
 the Sacred History, but this essay or sermon is already 
 too long. 
 
148 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF MORAL EVIL INTO OUR 
 
 WORLD. 
 
 IvECTure to Students. 
 
 This subject has been fruitful of extensive and bitter 
 controversy for many centuries past. It is a subject that 
 troubles many well-meaning persons at the present. 
 Young Christians and many who favor Christianity are 
 annoyed with it, and at a loss to answer the many objec- 
 tions brought against the Bible account of it. How to 
 reconcile the permission of our First Parents' sin with 
 the goodness and justice of God is what they are puzzled 
 to do; yet they feel confident that somehow or other God 
 must be both good and just. To remove some of these 
 perplexities, and answer some of the infidel aspersions cast 
 upon the Divine glory, is the design of the present lecture. 
 Since many of the greatest minds of the past and present 
 have given their best energies and talents to the solution 
 of this intricate problem, and have failed to satisfy all, it 
 would be the height of presumption in us to promise, or 
 even intimate, that we shall be able to free the subject 
 from all of the perplexities surrounding it. If we shall be 
 able to remove some of the graver difficulties encumbering 
 it, our purpose will have been accomplished. We hope not 
 to awaken an expectation that we shall not be able to 
 satisfy. 
 
 The Scripture account of the introduction of sin into 
 this our world is straightforward, succinct, and given 
 with an air of honesty that challenges our credence. 
 There is nothing at all improbable in the account thereof. 
 The account given us of the Fall is so familiar with us all, 
 that we will not spend time to quote or particularize. We 
 will simply use Paul's laconic and all-comprehensive state- 
 ment of it as the proposition or basis of this whole ques- 
 tion, namely : "Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into 
 the world, and death by sin; and death passed upon all 
 men." (Rom. v, 12.) 
 
 It ought to be remarked, that some of the objections 
 we propose combating get no little of their strength and 
 
INTRODUCTION OF MORAL EVIL. 149 
 
 plausibility from doctrines held by a respectable part of 
 the Christian Church, and from some concessions made 
 by the Christian world generally. Such is the doctrine of 
 Necessity; or that whatever comes to pass was predeter- 
 mined by God; that because God foreknows all things, 
 therefore they come to pass because He foresees them; 
 and that because God is omnipotent He can perform things 
 that are manifestly contradictory in themselves. To sat- 
 isfy you that this is not bare assertion, allow us briefly 
 to quote the views of some good and great men whom we 
 revere and love for their excellences : The sweet-spirited 
 Melanchthon says in his Comments on Romans, that "God 
 wrought all things, evil as well as good ; he was the Author 
 of David's adultery and the treason of Judas, as well as 
 of Paul's conversion." Luther calls "the foreknowledge 
 of God a thunderbolt to dash the doctrine of free-will to 
 atoms." Dick, the theologian, says : "If our volitions be 
 foreseen, we can no more avoid them than we can pluck 
 the sun out of the heavens." How such views can be made 
 consistent with Divine justice and goodness, and with the 
 facts and the experiences of most men touching the volun- 
 tary character of their actions, requires a credulity that we 
 confess ourselves total strangers to. Now how can those 
 entertaining the above views meet this celebrated argu- 
 ment of the infidel Cudworth? "The supposed Deity of 
 the world was either willing to abolish all evils, but not 
 able; or he was able, but not willing. This latter is the 
 only thing that answers fully to the notion of a God. Now 
 the supposed Creator of all things was not thus both able 
 and willing to abolish all evils is plain, because there would 
 have been no evils at all left. Wherefore, since there is 
 such a deluge of evils overflowing all, it must needs be 
 that either He was willing and not able to remove them, 
 and then He was impotent; or else He was able and not 
 willing, and then He was envious; or lastly, He was 
 neither able nor willing, and then He was both impotent 
 and envious." The real difficulty in this argument can 
 not be met by the advocates of necessity. The reason of 
 this is, their system is based on a false psychology or 
 
150 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 division of the human mind. The Will and Affections 
 have been confounded by them, or rendered identical. 
 There are three divisions in the human mind, instead of 
 two, viz. : the Intellect, the Affections, and the Will. This 
 natural division is now held by the first mental phi- 
 losophers of the day. This division, if attended to, will 
 go far to establish the freedom of the' Will and lay a sure 
 foundation for vindicating the Divine holiness and good- 
 ness from the irreverent imputations and sophistical argu- 
 ments of infidelity. 
 
 The offices of these different faculties, when applied 
 to these powers of the mind, will be found to apply to 
 them in a widely different sense. To illustrate this, sup- 
 pose that some article of food be presented to the intellect. 
 Now if the intellect takes cognizance of this food at all, 
 its decisions are positively necessitated. It must see that 
 there is so much, that it is of such a kind, that it is of 
 such a color and figure. Such a decision it can not but 
 make. Suppose now this same article of food be brought 
 before the Affections, as for instance the appetites or 
 desirive nature. It of necessity will experience certain 
 drawings towards the food; that is, certain emotions will 
 be awakened. A desire to eat will be the consequence. 
 This is a matter of stern necessity. The appetites can not 
 avoid giving such affections or emotions. But bring the 
 same article of food before the Will for its decision. Now 
 it must be evident to every one who has any knowledge 
 of the workings of his mind, that there is not any such 
 compulsion or necessity, that the Will should refuse or 
 choose this food that there was in the former cases. All 
 the philosophizing in the world can not set aside the ex- 
 perience of men on this point. It is a matter of almost 
 universal consciousness that this is so, however difficult 
 it may be to satisfactorily explain it. The first and second 
 instances are not properly speaking the acts of man — or 
 at least moral acts — in the same sense that the choice 
 or rejection of the food by the Will is. Here it is that 
 human liberty is to be found. It is in the region of the 
 Will, and not in the Intellectual or Desirive Natures. 
 
INTRODUCTION OF MORAL EVIL. 151 
 
 It is this determining power of the Will that renders 
 actions properly our own, and gives them the character 
 of being good or bad, virtuous or vicious. Apply this 
 simple test to the temptation of our First Parents, and 
 it is quite an easy thing to see that they had the power 
 of resisting or yielding to the seductive temptation of 
 the fallen Angel. The act was purely their own, and not 
 necessitated. It was this that stamped their act with such 
 enormity and flagrancy. Had their act herein been neces- 
 sitated, it had not been virtuous in them to have main- 
 tained their integrity nor sinful to have yielded to what 
 they could not avoid by a stern, unalterable decree. It is 
 no marvel then that the pious Necessitarian can not rescue 
 himself from the logic of the infidel, so long as he bases 
 his doctrine on a false psychology or division of the mind. 
 We conceive that these views of the Necessitarian, which 
 are not only at war with the Divine goodness and justice, 
 but also with human experience, lend a potency to the 
 arguments of the enemies of Christianity, that they never 
 could have had for them. 
 
 Let us examine this celebrated argument of the skeptic 
 by this rational division of the mind, and see what its real 
 strength and weight is. We have no desire to under- 
 estimate this argument, therefore we will state it in its 
 fullest strength. The better to understand it, we will give 
 it again. It is substantially this : Sin exists. This is ad- 
 mitted on all hands. It exists by the permission of God. 
 This God is held to be a Being of infinite perfections. 
 It is also admitted that sin is that detestable thing which 
 God hates. It is also granted that sin is the cause of 
 nearly all the misery and sorrow known in our world. 
 Now, why did God create a being who by the abuse of 
 his liberty would infallibly entail such a calamity upon 
 all his posterity? Now, the Creater was either willing, 
 but not able to prevent the introduction of sin into our 
 world; or else He was able, but not willing or else He 
 was both able and willing. No other view will fill our 
 notion of God. He has not prevented it; therefore He 
 was unable or unwilling, or both. If unable to prevent it, 
 
152 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 then He is not omnipotent as held ; if unwilling, then His 
 love of holiness is not infinite. 
 
 Let it again be repeated that concessions have been 
 made by the Christian world to this famous argument 
 that neither truth nor justice required. One of these con- 
 cessions is this: // God be omnipotent He could easily 
 have prevented the introduction of moral evil into our 
 world. This should never have been admitted. It is not 
 true, as we hope to show, in the sense in which it is em- 
 ployed. The sophism in this argument lies in this state- 
 ment: that if God be omnipotent He could easily have 
 prevented sin. It is not true that omnipotence can do all 
 things on the broad sense that this premise assumes. We 
 deny the premise, and shall attempt to show that it is 
 false and deceptive. There are some things — we say it 
 reverently — that Omnipotence can not do. He can not 
 perform a contradiction. Everything else this God of 
 ours can do. Nor does it lower His omnipotence in 
 our estimation in the least, that it can not work a contra- 
 diction. Does it not rather heighten our regards of Him, 
 that He can not? It is the glory of this Being that He 
 is consistent with Himself. Inconsistency is an attribute 
 of weakness, and not of power. Those who can admire 
 a God who is capable of contradicting Himself may do so; 
 but we prefer one who is not quite so omnipotent as all 
 that. The strongest argument that could be brought 
 against the power and perfections of Jehovah would be 
 that He is capable of performing a contradiction. 
 
 Let us take a few examples illustrative of this position. 
 It were impossible for God to give to a square the prop- 
 erties of a circle, or to a circle the properties of a square. 
 Or it would be impossible for God to make two and two 
 equal five. Nor could Omnipotence make a triangle to 
 possess more than two right angles. Not that it is less 
 than the power of Omnipotence to do such an act, but 
 because it is utterly inconsistent or contradictory for an 
 infinitely wise and powerful Being to work in such an ab- 
 surd manner. The remarks of a late writer on this point 
 are so apposite and well expressed that we will give them 
 
INTRODUCTION OF MORAL EVIL. 153 
 
 in his own words : "As contradictions are impossible in 
 themselves, so to say that God could perform them would 
 not be to magnify His power; but to expose our own 
 absurdity. When we affirm that Omnipotence can not 
 cause a thing to be, and not to be at one and the same time, 
 or can not make two and two equal five, we do not set 
 limits to it; we simply declare that such things are not the 
 objects of power. A circle can not be made to possess 
 the properties of a square, nor a square the properties of 
 a circle. Infinite power can not confer the properties of 
 one of these figures upon the other, not because it is less 
 than infinite power, but because it is not within the nature, 
 or province, or dominion of power to perform such things ; 
 to embody such inherent and immutable absurdities in 
 actual existence. In regard to doing of such things, or 
 rather such absurd and inconsiderable nothings, Omnipo- 
 tence itself possesses no advantages over weakness. 
 Power from its very nature and essence is confined to the 
 accomplishment of such things as are possible, or imply 
 no contradiction. Hence it is beyond the reach of almighty 
 power itself to break up and confound the immutable 
 foundations of reason and truth. God possesses no such 
 unreasonable power, no such horribly distorted attribute, 
 no such inconceivably monstrous imperfection and deform- 
 ity of nature as would enable Him to embody absurdities 
 and contradictions in actual existence. It is one of the 
 chief excellencies and glories of the Divine nature that its 
 infinite power works within a sphere of light and love, 
 without the least tendency to break over the sacred bounds 
 of eternal truth into the outer darkness of chaotic 
 night | M 
 
 It is clear, then, that no sane man will be guilty of the 
 weakness of asking why He did not make two and two 
 equal five, or why He did not make a circle to possess the 
 properties of a square, and vice versa; or why He did not 
 make a triangle equal to three right angles instead of two. 
 Such supremely absurd questions never enter our minds, 
 because it is simply contradictory to suppose for a moment 
 that a thing can be two things at one and the same time. 
 
i 5 4 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 It is casting an ungrateful and blasphemous aspersion 
 upon infinite wisdom and power to even hint at such an 
 idea. Now the enigma of moral evil in our world as held 
 by the skeptic is just one of these absurd contradictions. 
 He supposes if our God is a Being of omnipotent energy 
 He could have prevented the introduction of sin in Para- 
 dise. We join issue, and say that our Maker could not 
 prevent sin coming into our world under the present con- 
 stitution of things. The infidel assumes the ground that 
 God permitted this evil. Now it is nothing short of a 
 contradiction or a misuse of terms to say that a being 
 permits a thing that does not come within the range of 
 his power. As has been wisely said, "Power from its very 
 nature and essence is confined to the accomplishment of 
 such things as are possible, or imply no contradiction." 
 But it may be asked, Could not God have created a world 
 of moral beings and placed such guards around it, that sin 
 might have been prevented? We answer emphatically, 
 No. A necessitated holiness or virtue would be no holi- 
 ness or virtue at all. If God could have so circumstanced 
 us that we could not possibly have sinned, then there 
 would have been no virtue in doing what we could not 
 help. Such virtue — if it could be called virtue — would 
 not be ours, but God's, for it would not flow from an act 
 of our own will, which is necessary to constitute an act 
 of our own, and be virtuous or vicious. In such a case 
 we would have been virtuous and accountable in the sense 
 that a machine is said to act — by some extraneous power 
 or force, moving only as acted upon. A necessitated 
 holiness, then, is manifestly a contradiction of the kind 
 mentioned. We speak confidently, rationally, and rever- 
 ently, then, when we affirm that it was impossible for God 
 to prevent moral evil under the present constitution and 
 course of things. For Him to create moral agents and 
 then counteract their voluntary choice would have been 
 to destroy that agency and to render man a mere machine, 
 or to have made him both a moral agent and not a moral 
 agent, which is a palpable contradiction. This would 
 have been tantamount to blotting out His own work. Such 
 
INTRODUCTION OF MORAL EVIL. 155 
 
 folly as this would not do credit to a mere fallible man; 
 how infinitely discreditable and dishonorable then to the 
 Great Creator ! But mark the statement made in the 
 Scripture motto selected by us at the outset touching the 
 introduction of sin entered into this our world: ''As by 
 one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and 
 so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned." 
 Not as the Necessitarian would have it; not as the infidel 
 would have it by God's permission, "but by man's." It is 
 to be found wholly and solely in man's abuse of his free 
 agency. Here the burden lies, here is where all the guilt 
 arose. Infinite holiness and goodness are entirely exempt 
 and free from blame. It is all man's. Milton thus states 
 it; and there is as much pure theology in it as poetry: 
 
 "I made him just and right; 
 Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall, 
 Such I created all the ethereal powers 
 And spirits, both them who stood, and them who failed; 
 Freely they stood who stood; and fell who fell." 
 
 It is very clear, then, that it was impossible for God 
 to prevent moral evil under the present constitution of 
 things. But it may be urged by the infidel : Why did He 
 create any beings at all, if they could not be secured from 
 the sad consequences of falling? Suppose God had not 
 made any moral beings, then the skeptic would have urged 
 that He could not make a moral being where there was 
 no liability to sin, and consequently He could not be 
 omnipotent, which brings us back to the point that God 
 can not cause a thing to be and not to be at one and the 
 same time. Such a contradiction we frankly and gladly 
 confess the Being whom we worship is incapable of per- 
 forming. The real point of difficulty in this argument 
 we think is answered, but there is one which lies beyond 
 this and entirely disconnected with it which presents a 
 difficulty, and the only real difficulty in this whole perplex- 
 ing question. Why did our Maker create us at all, if the 
 only alternative was to create beings liable to fall, or not 
 to create any? This is an important and interesting in- 
 
156 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 quiry, and we shall endeavor to answer it under our next 
 proposition, viz. : 
 
 A vindication of the Divine goodness and holiness in 
 creating moral agents or beings liable to sin. When God 
 finished the work of creation by crowning it with His 
 masterpiece, moral and intellectual man, He thus spake 
 of that work: "And God saw every thing He had made, 
 and behold it was very good." The most eminent Bible 
 critics tell us that the original word rendered very good 
 signifies superlatively, or only good. Who, we ask, was 
 more competent to pronounce such judgment than the 
 Great Author thereof? He who understands all the qual- 
 ities, relations, and harmonies of universal nature, was 
 that the finished work of Creation was very good, super- 
 latively so. It exhibits an uncommon degree of assur- 
 ance in a fallible and sinful creature to oppose his ex- 
 tremely imperfect and defective judgment to that of his 
 good and wise Maker, by thus arraigning the Sovereign 
 of the universe before His erring tribunal, and charging 
 great imperfection upon His works. Such every man does 
 who finds fault with the present constitution of things. 
 Nor do the teachings of skeptics relieve the train of moral 
 evils of which they so bitterly complain. Did they, there 
 might be a little more show of propriety in their objec- 
 tions. On the other hand, the true Christian theist pro- 
 poses a full and sufficient remedy for all the evils flesh is 
 heir to, in the grand remedial scheme effected by Christ. 
 In view of this glorious scheme of redemption, He is able 
 to construct a doctrine of optimism or the greatest good 
 that completely answers every objection of the dark and 
 cheerless theory of atheism can possibly hurl against the 
 present constitution of our world. 
 
 Now admit — what can not be evaded — that there was 
 left this only alternative with God, either to create intelli- 
 gent moral agents liable to fall, or not to create any, and 
 the vexed question, the dark enigma, may be solved with 
 comparative ease. Some one of the Fathers has with 
 as much truth as felicity of thought and diction said that 
 "A horse that has gone astray is a more noble creature 
 
INTRODUCTION OF MORAL EVIL. 157 
 
 than a stone which has no power to go astray. 5 ' So a 
 moral agent, though there is implied in this a liability — 
 not a necessity — to go astray, is a far more noble and 
 exalted being than a non-moral agent, or a mere machine, 
 or than none at all. This world without moral and intelli- 
 gent beings would bring no declarative glory and honor to 
 its Maker. There would be none to admire and praise it 
 or its Author. The mere edifice erected by the architect 
 would be as capable of admiring and honoring its builder 
 as would a world of non-moral agents. A world destitute 
 of moral beings would only honor and magnify its Maker 
 as a house does its builder, and not as a son honors his 
 father. This is probably a clear distinction between the 
 world the infidel would have had God create and the one 
 He has given us. Who in his sober moments could desire 
 such a world as that must be ? A world destitute of moral 
 beings ! Is it too much to say, than none but a moral 
 being can admire the works and character of God? We 
 think not. God is a moral Being in the highest sense 
 of the term. His perfections are moral, and His designs 
 are moral. There must of necessity be an adaptation 
 between the Being to be admired and him who is to ad- 
 mire; i. e., this admirer must have a moral constitution 
 to perceive that which is moral. It would be as rational 
 to think of seeing without vision, or of hearing without 
 ear, or smelling without an organ. But the best world 
 the skeptic could possibly have, were moral beings blotted 
 out of existence, would be a world of irrational animals. 
 We need not ask what the capabilities of horses, cattle, 
 and swine are to admire the works and character of their 
 Maker. Who is so obtuse as not to see that man, though 
 liable to abuse his liberty, is infinitely more noble and 
 exalted than mere animals? But add to this the gratify- 
 ing fact that God has made the most ample provision for 
 the complete rectification of the moral evils flowing from 
 the abuse of this liberty, and our notions of the Divine 
 holiness and goodness must be infinitely heightened. And 
 He has done all this too without lowering the dignity and 
 claims of His moral government. Sin has been punished, 
 
158 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 and the insulted law has been amply magnified. Nou 
 God can be just, and yet justify every sinner that be- 
 lieveth in Christ. This is the Bible statement of this whole 
 question. But the skeptic holds that this does not meet 
 the whole difficulty. He maintains that it is inconsistent 
 with all our notions of holiness, by which we understand 
 strict justice, to punish the innocent in the room of the 
 guilty. If man is guilty he alone must suffer for his guilt; 
 another may not suffer for him, and especially an innocent 
 person. Human governments have not the right to punish 
 the innocent instead of the guilty, though the innocent one 
 might consent to pay the penalty. And if human govern- 
 ments, which are fallible and defective, would consider 
 it an enormity to punish an innocent man with death in 
 the place of the guilty wretch, even though the innocent 
 person should freely consent thereto, how can we recon- 
 cile such an act with the justice of God, who is infinitely 
 good and holy? This objection, we confess, looks not a 
 little plausible when viewed out of its true relations. Its 
 very plausibility demands that we should consider it. Now 
 the objection here urged that human governments have 
 no right to accept substitutional punishment is not true. 
 Human governments — and the best — accept substitutional 
 punishments in some instances where the substitution is 
 voluntary. All bails and securities are of the nature of 
 punishments. If it be wrong in the extreme case where 
 life is involved or great physical suffering is due, it is 
 also unjust in the lower sense of bail and security. All 
 punishment in earthly governments is for the security of 
 government or society; and if the well being of society 
 can be attained by voluntary substitution of punishment, 
 we know no valid objection to it in certain cases and emer- 
 gencies. The well being of the whole is paramount to the 
 good of the few. The idea of punishment is necessarily 
 implied in government. Every government has a right, 
 and is in duty bound, to inflict just so much and such kind 
 of punishment upon offenders as will preserve and keep 
 it in a healthy condition, and if an emergency should arise, 
 as there likely will, that government may, to save offend- 
 
INTRODUCTION OF MORAL EVIL. 159 
 
 ers and preserve the honor and dignity of the laws, accept 
 a substitute. This law obtains in the natural world in 
 various instances without shocking our sense of justice. 
 And if it be proper as shown for civil governments to 
 accept substitutional punishment, why may not God in 
 the moral government of His universe do the same? Or 
 as human governments as well as the physical laws of 
 this our world are the institution of God, and we find that 
 this substitutional punishment is admitted into this His 
 government, would not this fact furnish us an analogy 
 that a like state of things might be expected in the scheme 
 of redemption? We see no good reason that it may not 
 then enter into His moral government. 
 
 But as there may be some ambiguity in the word 
 "justice," we ought to show what kind of justice it is 
 that admits of substitutional punishment, and what kind 
 does not. There is what may be termed retributive and 
 administrative justice. By the former we are to under- 
 stand that attribute in God which disposes Him "to punish 
 an offender on account of the intrinsic demerit and hateful- 
 ness of the offense, and which animadverts upon the evil 
 conduct of a moral agent considered as an individual, 
 and not as a member of the great family of intelligent 
 beings." This kind of justice in God inclines Him to pun- 
 ish, because it is sinful per se — of itself — and not because 
 its punishment would secure the ends of moral govern- 
 ment. That is, God will punish each individual retrib- 
 utively, just as though there were no other beings in the 
 universe, simply on the account of the real demerit of sin. 
 This is the kind of punishment that will be meted out to 
 every unpardonable one at the coming judgment. 
 
 But God's administrative justice is quite a different 
 thing. This kind of justice inclines God to punish of- 
 fenders not simply because it is deserved, but to prevent 
 transgression and secure the ends of wholesome and wise 
 government. It is this administrative justice alone that 
 allows of substitutional punishment. It was to satisfy the 
 administrative and not the retributive justice of God 
 that Christ died. And as He died to secure the ends of 
 
160 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 God's moral government, therefore a man is just as ob- 
 noxious or liable to God's retributive justice after as he 
 was before the Atonement, where repentance is wanting. 
 The great end gained by Christ's death is this, time and 
 opportunity are afforded man to repent of his sins; it 
 places God in such a relation to His sinful creatures as 
 that He can have mercy and grant pardon on the simple 
 conditions of hearty repentance and faith in the Re- 
 deemer. 
 
 Suppose a nation or government of men should by 
 transgression render themselves liable to utter extermina- 
 tion by their sovereign, whose dignity and honor had been 
 insulted. Now in this terrible exigency suppose the king's 
 only son proposes to suffer in their stead, to satisfy the 
 claims of justice and meet the ends of government, and 
 place the offenders in such a relation to the sovereign 
 that he may grant pardon on suitable conditions. Would 
 not such an exhibition of justice and mercy greatly mag- 
 nify the wisdom and goodness of the sovereign and 
 strongly excite the admiration of his son ? Such was our 
 sad state when Christ came to our relief and satisfied the 
 administrative justice of God by suffering in our stead. 
 He thus secured the ends of God's moral government by 
 giving a most striking exhibition of the Father's hatred 
 of sin and His pity towards the guilty. This, instead 
 of reflecting on God's holiness and goodness, only magni- 
 fies it in the estimation of all candid and rational sin- 
 ners. 
 
 But it has been objected to by Dr. Channing, who was 
 a semi-infidel in belief, that the vicarious death and suffer- 
 ings of Christ are derogatory to the mercy of God. These 
 are his words: "I know it is said that Trinitarianism 
 magnifies the mercy of God, because it teaches that He 
 Himself provides the substitute for the guilty. But I 
 reply that the work here ascribed to mercy is not the most 
 appropriate, not the most fitted to manifest it, and impress 
 it on the heart. This may be made apparent by a familiar 
 illustration. Suppose that a creditor through compassion 
 to certain debtors should persuade a benevolent and opu- 
 
INTRODUCTION OF MORAL EVIL. 161 
 
 lent man to pay him in their stead, would not the debtors 
 see a greater mercy and feel a weightier obligation if they 
 were to receive a free and gratuitous release? And will 
 not their chief gratitude stray beyond the creditor to their 
 benevolent substitute ? Or suppose that a parent unwilling 
 to inflict a penalty on a disobedient but feeble child should 
 persuade a stronger child to bear it, would not the offender 
 see a more touching mercy in a free forgiveness springing 
 immediately from the parent's heart, than in this circui- 
 tous remission ? ; * 
 
 This objection is just as fatal to the doctor's theology 
 as to that of Trinitarians. He holds that it is necessary 
 that we should repent of our sins, and show a godly sor- 
 row therefor. We are to deny ourselves, take up our 
 cross and follow Christ. As the doctor says of the debt- 
 ors, so may we say of the sinner, would he not "see a 
 greater mercy and feel a weightier obligation if he were 
 to receive a free and gratuitous release? — without all this 
 sorrow and repentance and self-denial? Such conditions 
 are humiliating, exceedingly crossing to human nature. 
 Certainly if the analogy be worth anything, it will apply 
 equally to the teachings of Trinitarians and anti-Trini- 
 tarians. But the analogy is not correct; it lacks in too 
 many essential points to deserve the name of an analogy. 
 It is sadly defective, in that it puts a private citizen in a 
 similar relation to that of the moral Governor of the world. 
 It might be quite proper for a private citizen to do that 
 which in a civil officer would be highly improper and 
 even unjust. There are certain principles in government 
 to which there must be had the strictest regard. For in- 
 stance, the power of granting pardon may by abuse become 
 a most dangerous power. A private citizen may exercise 
 pardon or forgiveness, and no one may suffer from it but 
 himself. The authority and dignity of law must be strictly 
 guarded by showing its utter disapprobation and hatred 
 of transgression. This principle of private forgiveness 
 is recognized and strongly advised, while that of official 
 forgiveness is in the main prohibited. It is the exception. 
 There is a maxim of extensive application that "It is bet- 
 ii 
 
i62 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 ter that one suffer than the many." In governments the 
 less ought always to succumb to the greater; while in a 
 private capacity the contrary may be commendable. The 
 same is true in regard to the case of the father and son 
 instanced by the doctor. The father is a governor in the 
 fullest sense of that term. It would be a ruinous prec- 
 edent for a father in the government of his children to 
 do as here recommended; to grant his disobedient child 
 "a free and gratuitous release." There would soon be 
 an end of family government. The children would soon 
 rule their head, instead of their head ruling them. But 
 a substitute for the doctor's feeble child might be granted, 
 provided the parents' hatred of disobedience could as 
 forcibly be impressed on the transgressor's mind as if 
 he should suffer the penalty himself. Or it is very likely 
 that he might have a more lively sense of the exceeding 
 sinfulnss of sin than if he should endure the penalty him- 
 self, in seeing one stronger than himself suffer what was 
 his due. This would be so if after the substitute had suf- 
 fered he was still held as a transgressor and was required 
 to fill some irrevocable conditions, as repentance, the con- 
 fession of his guilt, the promise of reformation ; if unwil- 
 ling to comply with these requisitions, that he should suffer 
 the full penalty of the insulted law. These would be 
 powerful sanctions to the dignity and honor of the law, 
 and would deeply impress the offender with the heinous 
 nature of his offense. He would then see how great was 
 the mercy of his father in accepting a substitute to give 
 him an opportunity of repenting and suing for pardon. 
 Here is the very point, and the only point, where he could 
 see that most wonderful and soul-stirring spectacle: 
 "Mercy and truth meeting together; righteousness and 
 peace kissing each other." It is just here that the highest 
 exhibition of God's mercy as a righteous governor is to 
 be seen ! This accepting His Son's vicarious sufferings 
 for the sins of the whole world is its most transcendent 
 stoop and affecting display. If God's goodness and justice 
 do not shine most conspicuously here, then there is no 
 act of His that has ever given the slightest intimation 
 
INTRODUCTION OF MORAL EVIL. 163 
 
 that He is such a Being as the Bible makes Him. "It was 
 great to create a world from naught, but greater to re- 
 deem;" it was greater to solve the problem, How can 
 God be just and yet be the justifier of the repentant 
 sinner ? 
 
 God's mercy, then, is to be seen to best advantage in 
 union with His justice. Nay, is it not a mode of the 
 Divine justice? That would be indeed a wretched exhi- 
 bition of justice that would release an offender when that 
 release would entail a serious injury upon an entire soci- 
 ety. And this is the natural and legitimate inference to be 
 drawn from the doctor's reasoning. But God's mercy has 
 its bounds, and always has relation and regard to the 
 general good, and never to individual instances when those 
 would injuriously affect the general weal. His mercy 
 is not a fitful impulse or passion to be judged of by this 
 attribute in corrupt natures. It acts upon a grand scale 
 in the accomplishment of its blessed designs. L,et not 
 shortsighted man rashly charge God's mercy with in- 
 justice by saying that we should have had a more touch- 
 ing display of that mercy had He given the sinner "a free 
 and gratuitous release." This is reasoning from very 
 narrow views of the Divine character and plans. It is 
 charging Jehovah with folly such as would cast discredit 
 on a fallible creature. 
 
 Before concluding this subject we ought in justice 
 thereto to meet an objection from a different quarter. 
 The objection is founded on the Divine foreknowledge, 
 and then from this assumption the crazy tenet of univer- 
 salism is deduced. The argument may be thus stated: 
 God knew before He created man that he would sin; 
 therefore he could not avoid it; if he could not avoid it, 
 then God will not punish him everlastingly. This fallacy 
 can soon be exposed, so that the most ordinary mind may 
 detect it. There is a confounding of two things here 
 that are wholly distinct, viz. : foreknowledge and necessity. 
 Foreknowledge or certainty is a quality of the prescient 
 being, or God, and not a quality of the actor. The mis- 
 take is in transferring the certainty to the act and not 
 
164 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 to God, that has had much to do in mystifying this sub- 
 ject. A thing may then be certain and not necessitated. 
 To illustrate : We know the sun will rise to-morrow morn- 
 ing; but it will not rise because we know it. It would rise 
 if we did not know it. You may see a blind man walking 
 towards a fearful precipice, and you know that if he goes 
 much farther in that direction he will be precipitated into 
 the gulf below; but your knowing this does not necessitate 
 his act in the least; the result would be the same did you 
 not know it. It was precisely thus in the fall of our First 
 Parents. God knew that transgression would produce 
 misery and death;. but His knowing this did no more neces- 
 sitate their act than my right hand did. They would have 
 done the same thing, the circumstances being the same, 
 had God not known it. God's foreknowledge no more 
 caused the First Pair to fall, than His foreknowledge 
 kept those angels from falling who have kept their first 
 estate. Remember that foreknowledge in us and in God 
 is the same in kind, though not in degree. Man's will 
 and ability are not influenced in the slightest degree by 
 what God may or may not know. Therefore the conclu- 
 sion which is here drawn that God will not punish man 
 everlastingly does not follow. But suppose the premise 
 were correct — which it is not — that God would not punish 
 a man eternally for what he could not avoid, still the argu- 
 ment would be as fatal to the doctrines of Universalism 
 as to those of future endless punishment. Do not the 
 favorers of this argument see that it justifies God in pun- 
 ishing men in this life — and that very severely too — for 
 what they could not help? Now, if the doctrine that it 
 would be unjust in God to punish men eternally for what 
 they could not avoid, then it would be unjust to punish 
 them at all for what they could not avoid. Suppose a 
 father imposes an obligation on a son that he can not 
 discharge for the lack of ability, and then punished him 
 a few years for his disobedience, but tells him that he 
 shall receive no punishment after a certain time. What 
 would be thought of the justice ^and reasonableness of the 
 father's government? Would he not rightly merit the title 
 
INTRODUCTION OF MORAL EVIL. 165 
 
 of a tyrant? Be it remembered that he that is unjust in 
 that which is least, will also be unjust in that which is 
 greater. But men allow that in God which they would 
 condemn in the case alluded to. This argument, if it has 
 any weight at all, lies equally against punishment here 
 and hereafter, so that it proves too much. But seeing 
 God's foreknowledge had nothing to do with man's fall; 
 i. e., did not necessitate it, the argument does not prove 
 what it was intended to prove. 
 
 This vindication of the Divine goodness and justice 
 in creating moral agents may not be entirely free from 
 the charge of weakness from the poverty of human lan- 
 guage, yet we hold that it has infinitely fewer objections 
 and of a less serious nature than the world the infidel 
 would give us in its stead. We hope this view will throw 
 such an amount of light upon the subject as that what 
 may remain enigmatical will be so small, compared with 
 what is revealed concerning the Divine doings, that all 
 doubts of His goodness and holiness will be put to flight 
 forever ! It was a wise remark, made by a great thinker, 
 that we should never let what we do know and understand 
 clearly be disturbed by what we do not know. Especially 
 is this caution worthy of attention when what is revealed 
 on the question of moral evil so greatly overbalances what 
 is not made known. Where we can not trace God we 
 should trust Him. God then is not to be charged with 
 folly, impotence, cruelty, and injustice for creating a being 
 liable to abuse his liberty. It all lies with the free moral 
 and intelligent agent. He might have stood, and now that 
 he has fallen he may be restored to all that he has lost. 
 God's holiness and justice are not only unimpaired, but 
 His goodness has had an opportunity of displaying itself 
 in a new and most remarkable manner. 
 
166 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 CONSCIENCE. 
 
 Lecture to Students. 
 
 Young Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 I propose to invite your attention this afternoon to 
 Conscience, or as some moral philosophers term it, the 
 Moral Sense. Our inquiries will be best aided and under- 
 stood by observing some order. The following seems as 
 natural and appropriate as any that occurs to us; viz., 
 Is Conscience an innate and intuitive faculty? Is there 
 a universal Conscience? What is the relative importance 
 of this faculty? And when and how far may we depend 
 upon its decisions? Is Conscience an innate and intuitive 
 faculty? We are aware in instituting the inquiry that we 
 find ourselves on controverted ground. Mental phi- 
 losophers and theologians are divided in sentiment here. 
 Either to affirm or deny this interrogatory without some 
 modification would be positions extremely difficult to main- 
 tain. We think, however, that the negative is nearer the 
 truth than the affirmative. But the whole truth we appre- 
 hend will be found in neither. We hope to show that it 
 lies between these extremes, or partly in both. 
 
 A brief notice of the term faculty and its limiting 
 words innate and intuitive will assist us in understanding 
 the animus or true sense of the question. By faculty we 
 mean the power or ability of doing something. Thus we 
 talk of the faculty of seeing, hearing, feeling, reasoning, 
 perception, etc. When we speak of Conscience we mean 
 the faculty of judging between right and wrong, virtue 
 and vice, sin and holiness. 
 
 By innate we mean, as the word literally imports, in- 
 born, or born in one — occurring at one's birth. Then when 
 applied to any faculty of the mind it means coeval with 
 its birth. 
 
 By intuitive we mean the power of perceiving clearly 
 and fully at a glance anything and everything with which 
 the faculty is conversant or has to do. It is to be an 
 instantaneous decision without antecedent reasoning and 
 extraneous information. With this brief definition of the 
 
CONSCIENCE. 167 
 
 terms involved we are prepared to say that the faculty 
 of Conscience itself is innate. Itself we say, for we wish 
 to be understood as making a broad distinction between 
 the faculty and its necessary antecedent instruction. This 
 distinction we think is just and palpable, and the neglect 
 to make and bear it in mind has perplexed to no small 
 degree the settlement of the long controverted question. 
 Is Conscience an innate faculty? We hesitate not for an 
 instant to affirm that the faculty or power itself called 
 Conscience is inborn. Whether it be a distinct faculty 
 or is the result of a combination of faculties, we need 
 not now detain you to inquire; but we all know full well 
 that there is something answering to what we are pleased 
 to call Conscience in every rational intelligence. Every 
 moral being must possess it. To be destitute of it is not 
 to be a moral and accountable being. It is the distin- 
 guishing and essential characteristic of a moral agent. 
 This faculty or power then must be innate, or coeval with 
 the mind's birth; or we shall be driven to the extremity 
 of showing that it is given to us after our introduction 
 into this world, which would obligate us to tell when and 
 how it is given after birth to the soul — a thing we shall 
 be unable to do unless we assume that the faculty of 
 Conscience is nothing more than the result of knowledge, 
 or "the creature of education" as some are wont to call 
 it. To say that it is the result of knowledge or education 
 is to make the effect the cause, which is philosophically 
 absurd. This position is too contradictory to be enter- 
 tained for a moment, for the power or cause must be an- 
 terior to the effect. There can not be a decision without 
 a power to decide, no more than there can be vision with- 
 out the eye, or hearing without an ear. But every faculty 
 which man has must have some law or rule by which it is 
 to be regulated. The bestowal of the law may be delayed 
 some considerable time after the faculty has been created ; 
 in other words this law or rule of action, if necessarily 
 coeval with the faculty, may not operate till long after the 
 faculty has been in being. We have abundant illustrations 
 of this in the natural world. Birds have wings, or the 
 
168 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 power of locomotion through the air, given them some 
 time before they are prepared to use them. Children have 
 hands and feet long before they have any apparent use 
 for them. The faculty of Conscience lies dormant until 
 the human being comes to the period when it is capable of 
 understanding the terms right and wrong. Some arrive 
 at this knowledge much earlier than others, and of conse- 
 quence become accountable that much sooner. We per- 
 ceive, then, that Conscience abstractly as a faculty or 
 power is innate, or coeval with the soul's birth. While 
 this is indisputable, yet it is equally as clear that it is not 
 intuitive or instinctive. We mean by this that it will 
 not act antecedently to the knowledge of right and wrong, 
 for if it did it would act as soon as the moral being is 
 born, which we know is not the case. Instinct acts as 
 readily the first hour as after years of exercise. Thus 
 instinct impels the young duck or gosling to seek the water 
 as soon as born. Nor will they swim more gracefully 
 one year hence than then. This is instinct or intuition. 
 Not so with Conscience. It must first be informed through 
 the judgment or reason what is right and what wrong 
 before it can render its decision. In this sense Conscience 
 is not intuitive or instinctive. This apparent contradiction 
 may be relieved by turning our attention for a moment 
 to the creation of the First Pair. They were placed in 
 a garden where everything conspired equally to delight 
 the eye, the ear, and the taste. An interdict is laid upon 
 one tree only; and they were made fully aware that this 
 was to be avoided on pain of death temporal and loss 
 of the Divine favor. Now without the antecedent infor- 
 mation their conscience would not have intimated to them 
 that it was wrong to eat of that particular tree. Nor 
 could they without this information have discerned any- 
 thing in the fruit of that tree, calculated to produce such 
 dire consequences as followed their disregard of their 
 Maker's prohibition, more than in any other tree of the 
 garden, for the fruit was beautiful to the eye and prob- 
 ably pleasing to the taste. But it must be evident to every 
 discriminating mind, that to decide as to the qualities of 
 
CONSCIENCE. 169 
 
 different fruit is no part of the office of Conscience; this 
 is reserved for other faculties of the mind. It is wholly 
 conversant with the moral qualities of acts, and not with 
 material objects. 
 
 Suppose now that Adam and Eve had strayed through 
 the garden previous to the information furnished them 
 of the fearful consequences of eating that fruit, would 
 their consciences have warned them that they ought not 
 to partake of that tree? Or would they have felt that 
 stinging sense of condemnation upon meeting their Maker 
 that they did? No one can come to a conclusion so vio- 
 lent. There would have been no hiding in the thickets; 
 there would have been no such excuses as, "I heard Thy 
 voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked 
 and hid myself;" "The woman whom Thou gavest me," 
 etc.; and "The Serpent beguiled me and I did eat." Had 
 they not been previously forbidden to eat they had met 
 their Creator as aforetime without dread, even though 
 they had eaten of that same tree, for we can not conceive 
 that there was anything in the fruit itself productive of 
 such evils and miseries as have resulted to our world 
 from that act of disobedience. If sin is the transgression 
 of a known law, it must have been in the act and not in 
 the fruit. Abstractly, the fruit of that tree was probably 
 as innocent and harmless as any to which they had un- 
 limited access. These facts must settle the question of 
 Conscience not being intuitive or instinctive before previ- 
 ous knowledge. The establishment of this point is vital, 
 and will greatly assist us in our further inquiries concern- 
 ing the relation and peculiar functions of this important 
 faculty. The doctrine of "innate ideas" is no more pre- 
 posterous than that of an intuitive conscience. 
 
 The way is now somewhat prepared for our next ques- 
 tion: Is there a universal conscience? Or are all men 
 furnished with a conscience? We answer, Yes; all but 
 idiots possess a conscience; and they doubtless have the 
 faculty, but are not capable of using it because of other 
 mental derangement. This very universality, which we 
 are free to grant and defend, has been most strenuously 
 
i;o STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 urged as a strong argument in favor of its being intuitive. 
 It may be some proof that Conscience is innate as a fac- 
 ulty or power; but none whatever that it acts instinct- 
 ively before the knowledge of what is right and wrong 
 has been furnished it through the reason. All nations 
 and tribes have a conscience of some kind, though they 
 may differ widely as to what is right and what wrong; 
 it is nevertheless a conscience that makes them approve 
 some acts and disapprove others. It has been well said 
 that every language contains terms expressive of the ideas, 
 right and wrong. Whatever differences there may be 
 between Christian and heathen nations, are owing to their 
 different information. 
 
 We ought probably to clear up just here what may 
 appear to be a contradiction in our use of terms. We 
 have said that knowledge concerning right and wrong 
 must be given before Conscience can render its verdict 
 or decision. Now it may be said that the office of Con- 
 science itself is to furnish this knowledge. This contra- 
 diction is only apparent, not real. The poverty of human 
 language is the proper solution. Knozvledge as we have 
 employed it has a twofold sense. When we speak of ante- 
 cedent information or knowledge, we mean the standard 
 of right and wrong; but when we speak of knowledge 
 in reference to Conscience itself, we mean its decisions 
 or intimations that our acts either harmonize or disagree 
 with the standard or rule by which it acts. If it shall be 
 said the very etymology of the word Conscience signifies 
 to know, the proper answer to that is : this knowledge 
 which conscience is said to have refers to its own percep- 
 tions of acts which relate to the standard and the actor, 
 and not to the antecedent knowledge of right and wrong 
 as abstract principles, which depends upon the Creator's 
 will. To learn His will, or the standard of right and 
 wrong, is not the office of conscience, but of the reason 
 or judgment. This latter act is purely intellectual, and 
 that of conscience purely moral. It will be perceived, then, 
 that knowledge received through the judgment is quite 
 different from that received through the moral sense. One 
 
CONSCIENCE. 171 
 
 is a knowledge of a law; the other a knowledge or con- 
 sciousness of one's acts, as according or disagreeing with 
 a law external to, though binding upon him. This is 
 a brief, but we trust true, explanation of things quite 
 generally confounded on account of the ambiguity of the 
 word knowledge. This distinction must be continually 
 observed, or we shall get into the dark in our researches 
 on this question. 
 
 Having disposed of the proposition that there is a 
 universal conscience, and that this universality is no proof 
 that conscience is intuitive, we address ourselves to the 
 task of showing what is the relative importance of this 
 faculty of the mind. While no faculty of the soul is un- 
 important, yet some are more important than others. 
 Matter may be important, but it is inferior to mind; the 
 intellect is important, but it is less so than the moral or 
 religious nature. In point of eminence and office Con- 
 science yields to none. It is evidently pre-eminent. It 
 is purely moral in its nature and functions, as has already 
 been intimated. It is the tribunal before which all man's 
 acts, words, and thoughts are brought to be scrutinized 
 and determined as to their moral qualities. Nothing 
 may absolve us from its enlightened verdict. Its just and 
 untrammeled decisions are ratified in heaven. If there is 
 anything answering to the notion of some of the learned 
 heathen writers of early times, of "God within us," it 
 must be Conscience. It in all probability will be a swift 
 witness, either for or against us, at the final judgment 
 of the world. 
 
 Such, too, is the dependence of one faculty of the mind 
 on another, and such the superior and controlling influence 
 of some over others, that the absence or unhealthy state 
 of even one might greatly derange and weaken the due 
 exercise of all the others. Now Conscience in relation 
 to the other faculties occupies the chief position, and is 
 the sovereign ruler of all their workings. Take away this 
 regulating principle, or even disregard its monitions and 
 behests, and no act of a man's life is what the Creator 
 designed it should be. Then the proper and healthy exer- 
 
172 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 rise of every other faculty of the mind depends upon their 
 strict obedience to a well-informed Conscience. If such 
 is the high relation and office of this faculty, need we stop 
 to claim for it your most serious consideration, and ask 
 your most hearty attention to its correct and thorough en- 
 lightenment and exercise? 
 
 As to the question, When and how far may we depend 
 on its decisions, we approach it with some degree of re- 
 luctance, yet with a good measure of confidence. Reluc- 
 tance, because the subject has been fruitful of bitter con- 
 troversy and great errors; confidence, because we hope 
 that we have found a correct standard by which the fac- 
 ulty may be regulated. If we have such a standard, we 
 know you will rejoice and feel a modest confidence with 
 us in being able to solve what many may deem a "Gordian 
 Knot." The standard or rule must be the will of some 
 infinite and superior Being. Nothing else can aspire to 
 so high a dignity but the will of a Being who is infinite 
 in wisdom, power, and goodness. That will must of neces- 
 sity be the supreme foundation of all law, civil and moral. 
 This question is at once pertinent and vital. It may be 
 settled by the following summary method: If man is the 
 creature of God, and is under a moral government or 
 moral law, the presumption would be that he must be in- 
 formed what that law is under which he is to live. This 
 law, too, must proceed from his Maker, if from any one. 
 If the law is necessary it must first be given to be obeyed, 
 for "where there is no law there is no transgression." 
 Again, if the Creator is infinitely good, He would not 
 withhold that from His creatures which was indispensably 
 necessary as the revelation of such a law would be to its 
 being obeyed. Again, He must reveal this law, or forfeit 
 His attribute of holiness, justice, which would immedi- 
 ately strip Him of the highest and most indispensable 
 qualification of a moral Governor. 
 
 Now these presumptions are greatly confirmed in two 
 ways: first, by a revelation by Nature; and second, by a 
 revelation by language. By the former we mean God has 
 manifested Himself in the natural world. "For the in- 
 
CONSCIENCE. 173 
 
 visible things of Him from the creation of the world are 
 clearly seen, being understood by the things that are 
 made, even His external power and Godhead." By the 
 latter we mean the Holy Scriptures or Bible. "God who 
 at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past 
 unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days 
 spoken unto us by His Son." "For the prophecy came 
 not in old time, by the will of man ; but holy men of God 
 spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The reve- 
 lation by Language is much more explicit and satisfactory 
 than that by Nature. While their relative importance is 
 very marked, yet there is the most perfect harmony exist- 
 ing between these different manifestations of Himself to 
 His rational creatures. Those who argue that God's mani- 
 festation of Himself in the physical world is sufficient for 
 all moral purposes, seem to argue strangely indeed. That 
 human reason unassisted is competent to learn the will 
 of the Creator sufficiently for all practical ends is a great 
 blunder, and palpably in the face of history and human 
 experience. Many affect to ridicule the idea of a reve- 
 lation by language, while they laud Nature and deify hu- 
 man Reason with no little intemperance. For rational 
 creatures to ignore and stoutly reject a written Revelation 
 were the same as if men refused the light of the Sun, 
 because they were in possession of star light. One would 
 not be more unwise than the other. 
 
 But it may be urged that the pretended Revelation 
 known as the Bible is nothing more than a human produc- 
 tion. We have not the time nor the disposition to answer 
 the many frivolous objections made to the Bible. If it be 
 said the present Revelation contains defects and weak- 
 nesses a sufficient reply would be, so has the sun spots on 
 his disk. What may appear to be defects to us might not 
 be so, were we sufficiently acquainted with all the facts 
 and circumstances of its delivery. The spots on the sun 
 do not seem to interfere with its power to dispense light 
 and heat. The same is true of the Bible, with all the 
 imaginary defects with which some charge it. It is very 
 difficult, nay impossible, for a jaundiced eye to behold 
 
174 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 things in their true colors. Granting that a written Reve- 
 lation would be given, we should naturally expect some- 
 thing like the present one. It is most in harmony with 
 the wants of man and the character of God of anything 
 to be found in the entire history and literature of the race. 
 Nor ought Christianity to be asked to give up the present 
 till its enemies furnish a better. If man must have some 
 law to regulate his life, let it be the best one known — that 
 which comes most nearly meeting his necessities; that 
 which looks most as if it came from his Maker. We hesi- 
 tate not to say that this is the Bible. This, if anything 
 can be, is the will of God. It is a true transcript of His 
 mind concerning man. It is by this standard alone, then, 
 that we have a correct knowledge of what is right and 
 what wrong; what is sin and what holiness, and what is 
 vice and what virtue. If anything is right or wrong, it 
 is because it agrees or disagrees with the unchangeable 
 and holy will of God. An act is not right simply because 
 it may be convenient or pleasing to sense, or even advan- 
 tageous according to human notions; nor is it wrong be- 
 cause it may cause inconvenience or pain, or be crossing 
 to nature. Acts are right or wrong for a very different 
 reason; namely, God's will is unalterable, so are right 
 and wrong. They can never change by any circumstances 
 whatever. Right can never become wrong, nor wrong 
 right. They have been, are, and will be eternally the 
 same. The Bible and Nature then become God's ex- 
 pressed will to His rational and moral creatures; we 
 have a ready solution of the question, "When and how 
 far may we depend on the decisions of Conscience?" 
 Just when and so far as we are certain that our acts, 
 words, and thoughts are in accordance with the laws of 
 Nature and the written Word of God, and only then may 
 we infallibly depend on its monitions. We are well aware 
 that this is high ground, but we will risk its being safe. 
 We are also aware that there are some questions of Con- 
 science that present difficulties, that puzzle the acutest 
 casuists. These may be solved when brought to the in- 
 fallible standard of Divine truth. Only let them be sub- 
 
CONSCIENCE. 175 
 
 mitted with patient toil and genuine docility, and their 
 difficulties must vanish. The great diversity of Con- 
 science which we observe in the world is the result of 
 the different information men possess of the will of God, 
 expressed in the ways to which allusion has been made. 
 Had all men similar conceptions of their Maker's will, 
 there would not be that diversity of conscience which we 
 find on certain points. In this remark we do not include 
 cases of willful perversion, but simply cases where honest 
 men may differ. That the great difference between Pagan 
 and Christian nations is due to the superior moral enlight- 
 enment of the latter needs no proof. So the small differ- 
 ences on points of conscience between professed and nomi- 
 nal Christians is to be found in their different under- 
 standing of that will. But why this different information, 
 where their advantages are equal, of learning God's will? 
 It is not quite true that our opportunities of knowing His 
 will are equal. Some men have not only superior minds, 
 but they also have more leisure for the prosecution of 
 such studies than others. But allowing that they have 
 nearly equal facilities, the true answer would be, either 
 some are more diligent in seeking this information than 
 others, or they possess more contemplative minds than 
 others. If the former be the reason, then the idler is re- 
 sponsible for his lack; but if the latter, then God will not 
 hold him accountable only for what he might have known. 
 God is not a hard Master. If a man be blind through His 
 ordering, God will not hold him responsible for not seeing 
 the sun. But all sane men may acquaint themselves with 
 the will of the Moral Governor of the world, seeing He 
 has furnished them such abundant means; all others, 
 i. e., all insane, are irresponsible. It must have been ob- 
 served by all present that the most conscientious or best 
 informed in the will of God are not always the most in- 
 telligent or best educated among us. A man may be well 
 read in the lore of this world, and yet exceedingly ill- 
 informed in the morals of Christianity. So there are 
 many men well versed in the theory of Christianity who 
 are wretched practitioners ; that is, they do not follow the 
 
i 7 6 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 dictates of Conscience. They may have disregarded its 
 warnings so long that it has ceased altogether to notify 
 them; or if it does, it is but very feebly. Conscience may 
 be blunted; it may be "seared as with a hot iron." You 
 may silence its faithful voice; you may drown it in the 
 whirl of pleasure and in the clamors of passion and vice. 
 This perversion on the part of some, and ignorance of 
 God's will on the part of others in Christian lands, will 
 satisfactorily account for the diversity among men con- 
 cerning some questions of casuistry. Nor will it suffice 
 that a man may be sincere, for he may be sincere in a 
 grand error. Some darkened minds conceive it a virtue 
 to steal and lie; others to sacrifice their offspring and 
 aged parents. In all this too they claim to be actuated 
 by religious motives. Even the apostle of the Gentiles 
 thought he was doing God's service while persecuting and 
 slaughtering the early Christian Church. But who will 
 claim that these things are right because their consciences 
 approve their acts? In all these and similar cases con- 
 science is ill-informed or sadly perverted. So there are 
 hundreds of cases less flagrant in their nature in our age 
 of light, where men indulge in acts, words, and thoughts, 
 that are exceedingly questionable as to their character, 
 in which they claim to realize no compunctions or twinges 
 of conscience. All we have to say concerning cases of 
 this kind, where men can do things opposed to the letter 
 and spirit of the morals of the Bible yet experience no 
 pain of conscience, is, their conscience must be in a very 
 morbid state — in a condition well calculated to cause 
 alarm. Conscience unabused will always be on the side of 
 God and truth when it knows what those are. From what 
 we have been able to learn of our poor fallen human 
 nature in a brief lifetime, we doubt not that men may 
 abuse their consciences so long and so much that they 
 become identical with their depraved self interests. It 
 has come to such a pass that you can not convince a liquor- 
 seller but that he is doing right, simply because he finds 
 the business lucrative. As we heard last Sabbath, some 
 of them will weep "crocodile tears" over the very ones 
 
CONSCIENCE. 177 
 
 they have ruined, and yet do nothing to repair that ruin. 
 Their system of casuistry is, whatever makes me rich or 
 ministers to my unholy passions is right. Let no man 
 then urge his sincerity as a plea for his conduct, or that 
 his conscience does not disapprove of his course, when that 
 course is at variance with the Bible and the laws of na- 
 ture. Men are always responsible for their ignorance 
 when that ignorance is the fruit of their neglect or refusal 
 to improve their light and opportunities. We are not 
 accustomed to exculpate criminals, though they might 
 plead ignorance of the laws they may have violated, seeing 
 they might have known that there were such laws had 
 they sought to know. A man who has eyes and will not 
 use them, can not urge his blindness as an excuse for the 
 results of that willful blindness. He must and will be 
 treated as if he had done wrong with his eyes open; that 
 is, intentionally. It follows inevitably from hence that 
 conscience can only be a correct guide when it is an en- 
 lightened Bible conscience. 
 
 The only questions that remain to be settled are : Have 
 we a perfect expression of the Divine will? Is it such 
 that for all practical and necessary purposes men may 
 become sufficiently acquainted therewith, so as always to 
 act aright under the circumstances? We think so. If 
 men will they can learn all that God desires them to know 
 by becoming students of Nature and the Bible, but espe- 
 cially of the latter. His will is so clearly laid down and 
 exhibited in these two wonderful and merciful provisions, 
 that "he may read that runneth." Together they are as 
 complete and harmonious as two things could be. These 
 should be your principal study, young ladies and gentle- 
 men. And your chief aim in the study of these should 
 be to thoroughly acquaint yourselves with the will of your 
 Creator, that you may do that will "as the angels do in 
 heaven." They have no other business, nor have we. If 
 men conceive that they were born for any other purpose, 
 they have utterly mistaken the design of their creation. 
 Remember, young ladies and gentlemen, that your Maker 
 did not design you for eating and sleeping machines. He 
 12 
 
178 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 has something for you to do besides digesting beefsteaks 
 and decorating the body. These are means to an end, 
 and not the end itself. How shameful it is that most men 
 stubbornly persist in thinking that the chief end of life 
 is eating, drinking, sleeping, and dressing! Old Seneca 
 said long ago, without a Bible, that "men are to eat, that 
 they may live; not live that they may eat." Noble old 
 heathen, would that you could continue enlightening us 
 modern men! Eating is not living; living is loving and 
 obeying God. This is true life; nothing else can be. That 
 man, and that man alone, lives to purpose who becomes 
 acquainted with God and learns to love and obey Him. 
 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good 
 understanding have all they that do His commandments." 
 That life is not a failure that learns thus much, though 
 one may have learned little else ; all others are, no matter 
 what their reputation for worldly wisdom and valor. All 
 who succeed in gaining an earthly immortality — if that 
 deserves to be named immortality — as heroes, statesmen, 
 and scholars merely, are nothing more than splendid fail- 
 ures. To learn what is and to do right are life's only 
 work. Do n't fritter it away in pursuing airy nothings. 
 Dare to be "the highest style of man" — "a Christian." 
 Not in name, but in deed and in truth. And we only mean 
 by all this, cultivate a Bible Conscience. A tender and 
 well-instructed conscience is one of heaven's best gifts. 
 An intelligent and conscientious man is one of Nature's 
 noblemen. Let us "exercise ourselves herein to have al- 
 ways a conscience void of offense toward God and toward 
 men." And what a luxury is such a conscience ! Let us 
 all so live that we may be able always to say : 
 
 "I feel within me 
 A peace above all earthly dignities, 
 A still and quiet conscience/' 
 
JOSEPH IN EGYPT. 179 
 
 JOSEPH IN EGYPT. 
 
 Lecture. 
 
 Ancient Canaan and Egypt were in regular commer- 
 cial intercourse. One was the nurse of true Religion, the 
 other of the Arts and Sciences. These countries are both 
 historic. They have been the theaters of the most remark- 
 able events that have occurred in the world. These have 
 been no less prolific in beneficial consequences to man- 
 kind than they were in the almost fabulous richness of 
 their respective soils; the one "flowing with milk and 
 honey," and fertile in the vine, the other with its annually 
 overflowing Nile enriching the soil with alluvial deposits. 
 Geographically they were designed by Providence to exert 
 a far-reaching influence on all countries and succeeding 
 nations of the world down to the latest generations of 
 men. Egypt gave the world letters and science, and 
 Canaan the Bible and a Savior. Egypt solves the greatest 
 problem of religious thought of this and past ages, viz. : 
 that unassisted reason can not rise to just notions of its 
 moral relations and accountability to its Creator. The 
 Hebrew mind illustrates a nation under the influence of a 
 Divine revelation. Canaan gave Egypt a savior in Joseph 
 in the time of its spiritual famine, and Egypt gave Canaan 
 corn in the time of physical famine. We can guess the 
 different destinies of these two nations. Egypt's history 
 is written in her hieroglyphics, crypts, and pyramids; but 
 the nation has been long extinct. The history of the 
 Hebrew people is imperishably engraved by the finger of 
 God in the immortal Bible ! To-day the Hebrew nation 
 is the oldest living people on earth. Like Moses' bush 
 they burn, but are never consumed. 
 
 These two nations also illustrate another great truth: 
 that God has created necessary interdependencies between 
 nations as between individuals. This world is allied. 
 "God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell 
 on the face of the earth, and hath determined the times 
 before appointed and the bounds of their habitation." 
 Intercourse is to be kept open. We must become better 
 
180 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 acquainted with each other, that we may exchange views 
 and feelings as well as products and do each other good 
 in all possible ways. It is thus God shows the doctrine of 
 universal brotherhood. 
 
 In the year of the world 2220, or about 4,091 years ago, 
 there lived a lad of seventeen summers, born to the Patri- 
 arch Jacob (while he was yet serving his Uncle Laban 
 in Syria for his endeared Rachel. Jacob returns to Canaan 
 with a numerous family. It was here that Joseph, through 
 a spirit of cruel envy, was sold into slavery to some Ish- 
 maelitish merchants). He was the darling of his father's 
 heart, as well as the hope of a vast posterity. His sudden 
 disappearance was at once the grief and heavy sorrow 
 of the venerable patriarch's subsequent and eventful life. 
 For twenty-three long years he rests under the false im- 
 pression that Joseph had met a violent death by wild 
 beasts while visiting his brethren at Shechem. 
 
 It is with Joseph's life in Egypt that we have particu- 
 larly to do in this hour's lecture. His life while in the 
 land of Ham is full of thrilling incidents and useful les- 
 sons. These incidents and facts throw light upon his 
 peerless character. And it is the character of this young 
 man that specially concerns the young men that hear me. 
 Character, young gentlemen, is everything. Character 
 forms destiny. His mind was thoroughly imbued with the 
 principles of the Hebrew religion. The fear of God, 
 which "is the beginning of wisdom," will alone account 
 for his remarkable conduct and sterling principle in the 
 most trying circumstances and in the most responsible 
 position in which a man could be placed. Potiphar, one 
 of Pharaoh's chief officers, saw in Joseph qualities that 
 soon secured him a position of grave responsibility. 
 Moses, his biographer, who was born and reared in Egypt 
 and had access to all the facts of Joseph's life, tells us 
 that "the Lord was with Joseph and he was a prosperous 
 man and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian. 
 And his master saw that the Lord was with him, and that 
 the Lord made all that he did to prosper in his hand. 
 And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him ; 
 
JOSEPH IN EGYPT. 181 
 
 and he made him overseer over his house and all that he 
 had he put into his hand. And the Lord blessed the 
 Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake." 
 
 This simple but forcible recital of Moses gives us an 
 insight into Joseph's character, and the key to his success 
 and elevation in the kingdom. "The Lord was with him." 
 That is sufficient to insure any man success. But what 
 was equally imporant is Joseph was with the Lord also. 
 He was God's representative in the midst of a widespread 
 idolatry. Thus Potiphar, while he learned the great value 
 of a faithful servant, also learned something of Joseph's 
 God. He learned that a firm belief and trust in Him 
 made a man a better man in all the relations of life. The 
 secret of his success is to be found in his singular and 
 manly piety — in his fear and firm trust in the one true 
 and living God; in his unwavering faith in Divine Provi- 
 dence, and in the unalterable principles of right and 
 wrong as they enter into human conduct in this and the 
 future life. No man has learned the infallible road to 
 salutary success who has not learned this lesson. Such 
 a man will never be place-hunting; the place will seek 
 him and be sure to find him. 
 
 Another lesson taught in the life of Joseph is, that the 
 best and purest men are not out of the reach of the 
 calumny of wicked men, nor their well-laid plans to 
 seduce them from virtue's paths and ruin them; and that 
 often the sorest trials are in store for them in a quarter 
 where they would least suspect it. Such was the experi- 
 ence of this young Hebrew. His personal charms and 
 manly deportment become the occasion for a bad woman 
 to plot his ruin and attempt to smirch his virtue. This 
 was no less than Potiphar's wife, a courtly woman, who 
 became enamored of his beauty. But her unlawful ad- 
 vances and adulterous solicitations were met with a simple 
 but heroic courage in the following honest words : "Be- 
 hold my master wotteth not what is in the house with 
 me, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand: 
 neither hath he kept back anything from me but thee, 
 because thou art his wife: how can I do this great 
 
1 82 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 wickedness and sin against God." A reply worthy the 
 purest and highest virtue ! And betraying the keenest 
 sense of another's rights — even his master's. But this 
 noble and manly reply was not enough to shame his 
 mistress into at least a constrained chastity; but as oppor- 
 tunity offered she renewed her hellish solicitations, but 
 with no better success than before, till at length to make 
 her purpose good she seized him by the garment, which he 
 left behind in his miraculous escape. This was a tempta- 
 tion redhot from hell ; and never was there a more glorious 
 victor than he. Virtue never gained a greater nor more 
 signal triumph ! Never was a devil incarnate met by a 
 nobler manliness than in this instance ! But mark ! The 
 wickedness that had been fairly beaten on its own vantage 
 ground, with infernal hate and ingenuity strives to ruin 
 and stain forever the fair name and reputation that had 
 just triumphantly maintained its integrity and conscious 
 innocence in addition to saving her own character from 
 the guilt of open adultery. I say, see her hellish attempt 
 to ruin Joseph by informing on him for an alleged attempt 
 of the very thing he had escaped by the sternest resistance 
 and most consummate integrity.; see her, will you, taking 
 the very garment left in her adulterous hand by his virtu- 
 ous escape, and learn how much of a devil an angel may 
 become ! Thus you see what it costs sometimes to be 
 true to God, yourself, and your fellow-man ! In this in- 
 stance it cost Joseph two long, weary years of prison life. 
 It cost Daniel a lion's den, and his companions a fiery 
 furnace. The lie of the unfaithful wife and the remnant 
 of Joseph's garment were evidence enough in the absence 
 of counter testimony to convict Joseph. But innocence, 
 though victorious, is sometimes permitted to be under a 
 cloud till a just God vindicates it, as He is bound and 
 pledged to do. Joseph is cast into prison, deposed from 
 the trust he had so faithfully and successfully performed 
 and with the loss of an enviable reputation that had been 
 meritoriously won. Ah ! this is a hard and inscrutable 
 Providence. To be imprisoned for guilt is bearable; but 
 to be incarcerated for virtue and a noble attempt to do 
 
JOSEPH IN EGYPT. 183 
 
 right is a sharp trial of one's faith in God and in the right, 
 but so it turns out sometimes with the good. "Joseph's 
 feet they hurt with fetters; he was laid in irons until the 
 time that His word came; the Word of the Lord tried 
 him. ,, "But the Lord was with Joseph and showed him 
 mercy, and gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of 
 the prison." God, true to His character, will not allow 
 innocence and virtue to go unrewarded, though He some- 
 times permits them to be under a temporary eclipse. In 
 this case he mitigates the rigors of his prison life by 
 giving him favor in the eyes of the jailor, who made 
 Joseph overseer of all the prisoners. How soon merit 
 wins its way ! Faithful even in the dark prison where 
 hearts less courageous would have given way to gloom 
 and repinings. Now observe how God vinidicates injured 
 innocence and paves the way for his release from the 
 prison Potiphar's wife so richly deserved (and would have 
 received but for the youth who was proof against her 
 devilish machinations). Having by his transparent hon- 
 esty secured the confidence of the jailor, who commits 
 to him the care of all the prisoners, an event occurred 
 that brought Joseph to notice. There were two notable 
 prisoners here who had incurred the displeasure of King 
 Pharaoh. These were his chief cup-bearer and chief 
 baker. As Joseph passed from ward to ward overlooking 
 the prisoners, he observed these two men to be in great 
 distress of mind. He inquired the cause of their troubles, 
 and was informed that they had each an unpleasant and 
 strange dream. They related their dreams, and Joseph 
 interpreted them. The butler was to be released and re- 
 stored to his butlership, and the baker was to lose his 
 head. Joseph on telling the butler of his restoration made 
 this reasonable request of him : "Think on me when it shall 
 be well with thee and shew kindness I pray thee unto me, 
 and make mention unto Pharaoh and bring me out of 
 this house; for indeed I was stolen away out of the land 
 of the Hebrews; and here also have I done nothing that 
 they should put me into the dungeon." But, strange to 
 tell, this butler, who owed his release to Joseph, forgot 
 
184 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 to mention his case to Pharaoh. Thus it is extremes 
 sometimes meet — the greatest generosity and the basest 
 ingratitude. The undeserving go free and the innocent 
 is left to suffer; (because one is too honest to take ad- 
 vantage of his position and escape, and the other is helped 
 out of his dilemma by the magnanimity and intelligence 
 of his companion in suffering.) These contrasts remind 
 us that good and evil are strangely mingled in this world, 
 and that evil appears often to be greatly in excess of 
 good. Still these are so well defined in their widely differ- 
 ent consequences and influences as to give virtue the de- 
 cided advantage in the final issue. 
 
 Owing to the base ingratitude of Pharaoh's butler, 
 Joseph is left to the loneliness of his prison life till two 
 years had expired. A narrow view — as narrow and mean 
 as the butler's gratitude — would say that Joseph's God 
 was slow to vindicate his faithful and innocent servant 
 from the base and false charges of Potiphar's wife. But 
 God is not conniving at her sin by His apparent delay 
 to bring about his release, nor does Joseph feel that He 
 is. If human means are to play any part in his release 
 and vindication, God intends that they shall be. the most 
 honorable, and such too as will do credit to infinite wis- 
 dom and goodness, and most certainly place Joseph in a 
 most enviable position before his vile traducer and his 
 master Potiphar, who placed him there. Had the chief 
 butler secured his release from prison it would not have 
 been very greatly to Joseph's credit, though it might have 
 spoken well for the butler's gratitude. He was only a 
 cup-bearer to his majesty, and probably not a very worthy 
 one at that. God has, however, a higher honor for Joseph 
 than to have been released by this butler. Pharaoh, the 
 sovereign of all Egypt, is God's chosen instrument to do 
 this work. This same Pharaoh is to be brought under 
 the most special and weighty obligations to lead him forth 
 from obscurity and guiltless ignominy to the second place 
 in the kingdom. It happened on this wise : Pharaoh has 
 two dreams foreshadowing great suffering and trouble 
 to his family and subjects. He sends for all the magicians 
 
JOSEPH IN EGYPT. 185 
 
 and wise men of his realm to interpret his dreams, but 
 they could not. Then this butler, who had forgotten to be 
 generous to his Hebrew benefactor, says to Pharaoh, "I 
 do remember my faults this day." He has a little con- 
 science left, has he not? "While in prison I and the chief 
 baker had a dream, and there was with us a young man, 
 an Hebrew servant to the captain of the guard, and we 
 told him and he interpreted to us our dreams, and it came 
 to pass as he interpreted to us." And then Pharaoh 
 sent and called Joseph. They brought him hastily out 
 of the dungeon and shaved him. Now that he is in a pre- 
 sentable condition he stands before the crowned head of 
 the greatest nation then on earth. He stands before 
 Pharaoh no longer a slave and prisoner, but God's free- 
 man. Then said Pharaoh, "I have dreamed a dream, and 
 there is none that can interpret it: and I have heard say 
 of thee;" yes, of thee — God will see to it that such virtue 
 and integrity shall not remain in ignominy and obscurity, 
 but shall have a theater for their display worthy of them — 
 "I have heard say of thee, that thou canst understand a 
 dream to interpret it." But listen to the modesty of true 
 merit and genuine piety ! Prison life has not made a 
 parenthesis in this young man's faith and affection; it 
 has rather intensified and increased them. You that have 
 ears to hear and intellects to appreciate, hear it. He 
 answered Pharaoh, saying, "It is not in me : God shall 
 give Pharaoh an answer of peace." Mark this emphatic 
 recognition of God ! This is true piety ! No self-seeking 
 here — no ambition for place or notoriety ! It is place 
 and notoriety seeking a man ! It is Divine Providence 
 and infinite wisdom bringing the right man to the right 
 place. Calling him out in an exigency without ambitious 
 lusting, planning, and political strategy on his part. 
 Pharaoh is informed that a sore and grievous famine of 
 seven years' continuance was to come on all the known 
 world after seven years' plenty. To meet this terrible 
 scourge there must be some ruling mind of great financial 
 sagacity and grasp of statesmanship, and withal of broad 
 philanthropy and sterling integrity, free from mercenari- 
 
186 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 ness, who shall be Prime Minister and financial secretary 
 of a great nation in a special emergency. But who shall 
 he be? Joseph never once suspects that such a trust and 
 responsibility are awaiting him. Joseph tells Pharaoh to 
 select a man "discreet and wise;"* but who thought 
 Pharaoh was so discreet and wise as Joseph ? True merit 
 is unsuspecting, unambitious, and unaspiring, but gravi- 
 tates to its place as certainly as the planets do to their 
 orbits. Joseph modestly enters upon the career for which 
 Providence and his eminent qualities of mind and heart 
 had fitted him. Here it was that he displayed his tran- 
 scendent genius, and has made himself immortal by his 
 words and deeds. Such a position became the man, and 
 his official career of twenty-six years fully justified the 
 wisdom of Pharaoh's choice. 
 
 ff he generous crops of seven years are safely garnered 
 and husbanded with economic foresight against the seven 
 years of famine. The famine came with all its predicted 
 severity and prevalence, visiting the land of his father 
 and brethren on the western shore of the Mediterranean 
 or Great Sea, as well as Egypt and surrounding countries. 
 Joseph's brethren not taking the wise precaution that he 
 had done, soon found their supplies exhausted, and had to 
 look to surrounding nations for food. Jacob, his father, 
 having heard that there was corn in Egypt, said unto his 
 sons, "Why do ye look upon one another ? Get you down 
 to Egypt and buy for us, that we may live and not die." 
 Pinching want drives ten of Joseph's brethren down to 
 Egypt to buy corn. These are the brethren who through 
 envy sold Joseph to the Ishmaelitish merchants. These 
 are the names of the ten brothers : Reuben, Simeon, Levi, 
 Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. 
 These are the gentlemen who, to conceal their crime, told 
 their father that wild beasts had torn him. About twenty- 
 one years have elapsed, pregnant with singular and start- 
 ling events, without hearing one word of the long-lost 
 brother. Whether dead or alive, they know not; if alive, 
 whether rich or poor, a slave or a ruler, was alike un- 
 known; whether in Egypt or India they know not, or 
 
JOSEPH IN EGYPT. 187 
 
 whether they would ever see his face again was infinitely 
 more doubtful than certain. God has a surprise in store 
 for these ungenerous brothers that will overwhelm them 
 with alternate penitence and joy. Let us see how this 
 was brought about, and how Joseph was made known to 
 his brethren. It was his special business as governor 
 of the land to oversee the sales of the corn. He is thus 
 brought in contact with his brethren. He being a lad 
 when they sold him had grown out of their knowledge, 
 and wearing the costume of the country where he lived 
 completely disguised him. But he knew them. Joseph's 
 dream of his brethren's sheaves making obeisance to his 
 now meets its fulfillment for the first time. Little did he 
 or they know how this dream was to be realized, but see- 
 ing them prostrate themselves before him after the custom 
 of Oriental lands he "remembered the dreams that he 
 dreamed of them. ,, That he knew them is evident from 
 his studiously concealing the fact from them. He put on 
 an unnatural reserve the better to disguise himself. He 
 charges them with being "spies." "Nay, my lord," they 
 reply, "but to buy food are thy servants come. We are all 
 one man's sons; we are true men; thy servants are no 
 spies." He again charges them with being spies ; but they 
 emphatically assure him to the contrary, saying: "Thy 
 servants are twelve brethren, the sons of one man in the 
 land of Canaan, and behold the youngest is this day with 
 our father and one is not." "And one is not." How the 
 short sentence, "one is not," came home with telling force 
 to Joseph's sensitive and manly heart ! And then to be 
 reminded that his patriarch father was still alive ! By a 
 vigorous effort he summons his will, represses his strug- 
 gling emotions, and charges them again with being "spies." 
 To prove them said he: "Except your youngest brother 
 come hither ye shall not return to your own land. Send 
 one of you and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall 
 be kept in prison that your words may be proved whether 
 there be any truth in you." And he put them all in prison 
 for three days. And Joseph said unto them the third day : 
 "This do and live, for I fear God. If ye be true men let 
 
188 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 one of your brethren be bound in prison; but go ye, carry 
 corn for the famine of your houses and bring your young- 
 est brother unto me, so shall your words be verified and 
 ye shall not die." And they did so. 
 
 This is an hour of sharp trial and pungent reflection 
 with ten brothers. "They said one to another" in Joseph's 
 presence : "We are verily guilty concerning our brother in 
 that we saw the anguish of his soul when he besought us, 
 and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come 
 upon us." (Joseph speaking through an interpreter is 
 supposed not to understand what they said.) Joseph's 
 unnatural treatment of them at this time was intended to 
 awaken this very feeling and provoke this confession. 
 Reuben, who had interposed in Joseph's behalf when the 
 other brethren were determined to kill him, now reminds 
 them of that occasion in the following words : "Spake not 
 I unto you, saying: Do not sin against the child; and ye 
 would not hear; therefore behold also his blood is re- 
 quired." This speech of Reuben was too much for his 
 emotional nature, and he had to retire to weep. Having 
 dried his tears and recovered himself sufficiently, he re- 
 sumes the business. He takes Simeon and binds him 
 before their eyes as a hostage for the safe return of the 
 others and Benjamin. If Simeon was the one who bound 
 the youthful Joseph (as some think) and put him into 
 the pit, this selecting him as the pledge and putting him 
 in prison till the return of his brethren was well calcu- 
 lated to remind him of the unbrotherly part he played 
 in that cruel transaction verifying the saying, "With 
 what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you 
 again." 
 
 The other nine have started on their homeward journey 
 well laden with corn and other provisions. As one of the 
 number opens his sack of provender to feed his beast he 
 discovers his money in the sack's mouth, and says to his 
 brethren, "Behold, my money is restored." Their hearts 
 sink within them from fear, lest this circumstance should 
 lay them open to the suspicion of dishonesty and be in the 
 way of their return in the future. Having reached home 
 
JOSEPH IN EGYPT. 189 
 
 they relate what had taken place in Egypt, and how that 
 Simeon had been detained as a pledge that they would 
 return and bring Benjamin with them. The father's heart 
 sank within him at the sad intelligence and hard demand 
 to give up his Benjamin. Hear him: "Me ye have be- 
 reaved of my children. Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, 
 and ye will take Benjamin away: all these things are 
 against me." 
 
 Reuben, who seemed forward to speak on all occasions, 
 replied to the gray-haired sire : "Slay my two sons if I 
 bring him not to thee ; deliver him into my hand and I will 
 bring him to thee again." The patriarch's reply is natural 
 and emphatic : "My son shall not go down with you, for 
 his brother (Joseph) is dead and he is left alone: if mis- 
 chief befall him in the way in which ye go, then ye shall 
 bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave." 
 
 But the pressure of the famine caused the father to 
 yield to the severe demand, as it was the only condition 
 upon which they could redeem Simeon and procure the 
 necessaries of life. Said Jacob in genuine parental grief: 
 "Wherefore dealt ye so ill with me, as to tell the man" — 
 the man ! — "whether ye had yet a brother ?" But stern 
 necessity is upon him, and he resolves to make the best of 
 the situation. He leaves no means untried to conciliate 
 the governor of Egypt so as to secure the return of his 
 Simeon and Benjamin. Having changed his mind, he 
 thus replies to Judah : "If it be must so, now do this : take 
 of the best fruits of the land in your vessels, and carry 
 down to the man a present — a little balm, and a little honey, 
 spices, and myrrh, nuts and almonds. And take double 
 money in your hand; peradventure it was an oversight: 
 take also your brother (Benjamin, yes Benjamin!); 
 arise and go again unto the man, that he may send away 
 your other brother and Benjamin: If I am bereaved of 
 my children, I am bereaved." A most touching scene 
 then occurred between Judah and his father on the eve 
 of their departure for Egypt. Mark the tender-hearted 
 parent with humane and paternal impulses subjected to 
 the severest test of faith and natural emotion by a demand 
 
i 9 o STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 to give up his youngest son under the pretext of redeem- 
 ing an older brother who is detained as a hostage by a 
 foreign prince for the safe return of the first deputation. 
 When we reflect, too, that this was an age of human 
 slavery, and that Egypt was addicted to it, we will be 
 somewhat prepared to appreciate the patriarch's fears and 
 misgivings. Add to this his bitter experience in the loss 
 of Joseph many years before, and the sore calamity in the 
 recent probable loss of Simeon, these things all conspired 
 to awaken alarm and convulse his heart with genuine grief 
 so as truly to embitter his old age and extort the lament: 
 "If I am bereaved of my children I am bereaved !" What 
 simplicity and telling force there are in these spontaneous 
 words ! And then Judah's filial and brave attempt to allay 
 parental fears and grief, though full of generosity and 
 strong faith: yet how impotent to meet the terrible and 
 crushing exigency that was now upon that struggling, 
 throbbing heart. "I will be surety for Benjamin: of me 
 shalt thou require him : if I bring him not unto thee, then 
 let me bear the blame forever." Noble and eloquent words 
 these ! But not so eloquent as the occasion and reply of 
 the father's profound grief ! Had it been recorded, it 
 would have been something like the following: "Judah, 
 my son, I doubt not your manly generosity and fraternal 
 affection for Benjamin, but I remember that you are a 
 man. You are quite confident of returning my dear boy; 
 but you were equally confident in bringing back Simeon; 
 'but Simeon is not/ Your being ready to bear the blame 
 'forever' is manly and heroic ; but what will all that avail 
 in case he is lost? It only shows you to be a noble son 
 and true brother, but it allays not my fearful forebodings ! 
 Reuben has even gone further, and pledged me his own 
 sons in case of any mishap to my fond Benjamin. It is 
 true they are as dear to him as Benjamin is to me, but 
 that kind of security does not change our native impulses." 
 But what these eloquent appeals of Reuben and Judah 
 failed to do, the very native impulses of which we speak 
 as if by magic bring about. Jacob sees not only the loss 
 of Simeon and Benjamin in the apparently harsh demand 
 
JOSEPH IN EGYPT. 191 
 
 of "the man" down in Egypt, but in the sore famine with 
 its grim and stern visage he sees the certain loss of the 
 entire family and his fellow-countrymen. All the famines 
 that ever scourged our earth, were they concentrated in 
 one, could never cause a true father to give up his son 
 unless the life of that son was involved in the giving him 
 up. This is precisely the case before us — the life of Ben- 
 jamin and the whole family were involved. We bow in 
 tender awe in the presence of this affecting scene. But 
 we must draw the curtain and pass to the second inter- 
 view of Joseph and his brethren. 
 
 Passing by the events of the long journey, imagine 
 you see Joseph's ten brethren just arrived in front of his 
 palace in one of the magnificent cities of Egypt, say Mem- 
 phis or Thebes. When Joseph saw Benjamin among the 
 brothers he ordered his steward to invite them in. Simeon 
 is released, and is one of the guests. There is a marked 
 change in the conduct of Joseph toward his brethren. 
 They are admitted to his hospitality. Great preparations 
 are made for their entertainment. On being invited to 
 dine in the palatial mansion, the guests betray some fear 
 lest it was a plan to investigate the matter of the money 
 found in their sacks. They really thought Joseph was 
 seeking "occasion against them," and did not know but 
 it might result in making prisoners of all of them. No 
 doubt Reuben and Judah thought of the brave speeches 
 and pledges they had made recently to their father re- 
 specting the safe return of Benjamin and the apparent 
 probability that his fearful apprehensions might yet be 
 realized, and even more, that he might not only not see 
 Simeon and Benjamin, but he might not see any of them 
 again. As soon therefore as they met Joseph's steward 
 they began to anticipate the charge they feared would be 
 brought against them in the matter of money found in 
 their sacks : "O sir, we came indeed down at the first to 
 buy food; and it came to pass when we came to the inn 
 that we opened our sacks, and behold every man's money 
 was in the mouth of his sack; and we have brought it 
 again in our hand. And other money have we brought 
 
192 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 down in our hand to buy food: we can not tell who put 
 the money in our sacks." They wait with breathless 
 anxiety his reply. How unlike the answer their fears had 
 conjured up. "Peace be to you; fear not, your God and 
 the God of your father hath given you treasure in your 
 sacks ; I had your money." 
 
 Being notified of the ruler's intention to have them 
 dine with him, they thought it a suitable time to present 
 the gifts sent by their father. As they entered the palace 
 about noon, they bowed themselves before Joseph and 
 made their present, telling him at the same time from 
 whom it came. The ruler asks them of their welfare, and 
 if their father were well. "The old man of whom ye 
 spake, is he yet alive?" Said they with respectful obei- 
 sance: "Thy servant our father is in good health; he is 
 yet alive." Joseph then turning to the youngest of the 
 eleven, asked : "Is this your youngest brother of whom ye 
 spake to me?" And he said, "God be gracious unto thee, 
 my son." This sight was more than Joseph could bear. The 
 memories of the past, of home, of father and mother, and 
 the brethren present force him to retire and weep ! After 
 weeping some time in his chamber, he washed himself and 
 ordered the steward to set on bread. As it was the custom 
 for Egyptian rulers to eat by themselves, they set Joseph's 
 table by itself. He avails himself of this custom, the 
 longer to conceal the fact that he is their brother; they 
 are seated according to their ages. During the meal he 
 sent messes from his table to them; but sent Benjamin 
 "five times" more than to the others, with the design 
 doubtless of exciting their curiosity and further testing 
 them, and preparing the way for his intended revelation 
 that he was the same Joseph whom they had sold to the 
 merchants at Dothan. But Joseph intends to humiliate 
 them once more before making himself known to them. 
 The steward having filled their sacks with corn and food, 
 is ordered to put every man's money into his sack, and 
 Joseph's own silver cup into Benjamin's sack. All things 
 ready the caravan starts off for Canaan. There are eleven 
 light and happy hearts in that company. But they had not 
 
JOSEPH IN EGYPT. 193 
 
 proceeded far till a messenger overtook them and de- 
 manded their return. How soon, alas ! their happiness 
 gives way to fear and sadness ! They are met with the 
 stunning charge that some one of the company had stolen 
 the ruler's silver cup from which he drank. With supreme 
 astonishment they affirm their innocence by an appeal to 
 their former honesty in returning the money in their sacks. 
 With conscious pride and innocence they reply: "With 
 whosomever of thy servants it be found both let him die, 
 and we also will be my lord's bondsmen." The steward 
 quickly replied: "Let it be according unto your words; 
 he with whom it shall be found shall be my servant and 
 ye shall be blameless." The terms are less severe than 
 they themselves had proposed ; but severe enough to thwart 
 their promises with their anxious and expectant parent. 
 How little did they realize that their agreement was going 
 to involve them in the very dilemma their father most 
 feared. The search begins. The beasts are unladed. 
 They commence with the eldest and end with Benjamin. 
 Ill-luck to the brethren ! Benjamin is convicted of the 
 theft. In their confusion and grief they rent every man 
 his clothes, and returned to the city to await their fate. 
 Judah and his brethren came to the ruler and fell prostrate 
 before him to receive the rebuke and penalty of Benja- 
 min's guilt. Said he to them, "What deed is this that ye 
 have done?" Judah in behalf of his distressed brethren 
 speaks for them and himself. And we think there never 
 was more eloquence and pathos couched in so many words. 
 Let us hear that speech : "What shall we say unto my 
 lord? What shall we speak? or how shall we clear our- 
 selves ? God hath found out the inquity of thy servants : 
 behold we are my lord's servants, both we and he also with 
 whom the cup is found." Joseph here interrupts him by 
 saying: "God forbid that I should do so; but the man in 
 whose hand the cup is found he shall be my servant; and 
 as for you, get you up in peace unto your father." Then 
 Judah came near unto him and said: O my lord, let thy 
 servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my lord's ears, and 
 let not thine anger burn against thy servant; for thou art 
 
 13 
 
194 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 even as Pharaoh. My lord asked his servants, "Have ye 
 a father or a brother? And we said unto my lord, we 
 have a father, an old man, and a child of his age, a little 
 one: and his brother is dead and he alone is left of his 
 mother, and his father loveth him. And thou saidst unto 
 thy servants, Bring him down unto me that I may set 
 mine eyes upon him. And we said unto my lord, 'The 
 lad can not leave his father, for if he should leave his 
 father, his father would die. And thou saidst unto thy 
 servants, Except your youngest brother come down with 
 you, ye shall see my face no more. And it came to pass, 
 when we came up unto thy servant my father, we told 
 him the words of my lord. And our father said, Go and 
 buy us a little food. And we said, we can not go down; 
 if our youngest brother be with us, then we will go down; 
 for we may not see the man's face except our youngest 
 brother be with us. And thy servant my father said unto 
 us, Ye know that my wife bare me two sons and the one 
 went out from me and I said, Surely he is torn in pieces; 
 and I saw him not since; and if ye take this also from 
 me, and mischief befall him, ye shall bring down my gray 
 hairs with sorrow to the grave. Now therefore when I 
 come to thy servant my father and the lad be not with 
 us; (seeing his life is bound up in the lad's life) it shall 
 come to pass, when he seeth the lad is not with us that 
 he will die: and thy servants shall bring down the gray 
 hairs of thy servant our father with sorrow to the grave. 
 For thy servant became surety for the lad unto my father 
 saying: If I bring him not to thee, then I shall bear the 
 blame to my father forever. Now therefore I pray thee, 
 let thy servant abide instead of the lad a bondman to my 
 lord; and let the lad go up with his brethren. For how 
 shall I go up to my father and the lad not be with me? 
 lest peradventure I see the evil that shall come on my 
 father." "Then Joseph could not refrain himself before 
 all them that stood by and he cried, Cause every man to 
 go out from me and he made himself known to his breth- 
 ren and he wept aloud." How he could have done other- 
 wise after such a touching appeal we can not see. It is 
 
JOSEPH IN EGYPT. 195 
 
 not in unperverted human nature to withstand such elo- 
 quence under such circumstances. It was only equaled 
 by the eloquence of Joseph's tears and pathetic reply: "I 
 am Joseph: doth my father yet live? Come near to me 
 I pray you. I am Joseph whom ye sold into Egypt. Now 
 therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves that 
 ye sold me thither, for God did send me before you to 
 preserve life." 
 
 Joseph's ardent affection for his brethren, so long and 
 violently suppressed, now like waters dammed up broke 
 over every barrier, deluging his noble face with a flood of 
 tears and strong emotion. He first falls on Benjamin's 
 neck, and then on the necks of his elder brethren. The 
 contagion of tears and kisses became general, for Benja- 
 min wept on his neck and kissed his long-lost brother, 
 and so did the others. This was a very Bochim ! Such 
 a scene only occurs once in a lifetime or many ages. 
 There never was a fitter occasion for tears and deep emo- 
 tion than this; and there never was a more natural and 
 hearty manifestation of them. After this tender and af- 
 fecting scene was past they all doubtless felt better and 
 happier. This tempest of passion over, it was a suitable 
 time for a lengthened conversation. There was abundance 
 of material, and we can easily conjecture some of the 
 topics that would engage their attention. 
 
 Joseph's magnanimity and singular generosity are thus 
 brought to the surface by the irresistible eloquence of 
 Judah, though long repressed. He was not ashamed to 
 give vent to his emotions and tears so that the Egyptians 
 and royal household witnessed them. It is not a sign 
 of weakness in a great man to weep. Tears are noble 
 and manly when there is an occasion for them, as there 
 was in this case. 
 
 Joseph's greatness of soul is seen in not permitting his 
 brethren longer to remain in suspense, also in exonerating 
 them from any blame in the matter of his sale to the 
 Egyptians. It is difficult to tell which most to admire, 
 Joseph's magnanimity or Judah's honest simplicity in ad- 
 mitting Benjamin's apparent guilt and his integrity in 
 
1 96 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 offering and pleading to remain a bondman for his natu- 
 ral life in Benjamin's stead. 
 
 The report of this touching and melting meeting of 
 Joseph and his brethren was noised abroad among the 
 royal family. It produced a most profound sensation even 
 there, for Joseph stood high with Pharaoh and his nobles. 
 Moses tells us, "It pleased Pharaoh well and his serv- 
 ants." Pharaoh immediately told Joseph to "say to his 
 brethren this do ye: laden your beasts and go; get you 
 unto the land of Canaan, and take your father and your 
 households and come unto me, and I will give you the good 
 of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land. 
 Take you wagons out of the land of Egypt for your little 
 ones and for your wives, and bring your father and 
 come." 
 
 Here is an appreciation of Joseph's qualities and serv- 
 ices and generosity worthy of a good and great king. It 
 can not be said that all kings are unfeeling. It was noble 
 in Moses, who lived under another of the name more 
 oppressive and cruel, thus to do honor to a worthy prede- 
 cessor. 
 
 Pharaoh's kind offer is accepted by Joseph and his 
 family. Magnificent presents are sent to the Patriarch 
 Jacob with wagons sufficient to convey all his posterity 
 to Egypt. The brethren return home and open to their 
 father the success of their journey, bringing with them 
 both Simeon and Benjamin, and what was better still, 
 the unexpected intelligence that his long-lost Joseph is 
 alive and is governor of Egypt. The news was too much 
 for the aged sire, and he fainted and swooned away. On 
 his recovery they rehearsed to him all the circumstances 
 of Joseph's revealing himself, and then showed him the 
 presents and wagons Joseph had sent to convey him and 
 all his to Egypt. "And Jacob said: It is enough: Joseph 
 my son is yet alive. I will go and see him before I die." 
 
 There seems to be no delay for their removal to Egypt. 
 Jacob and all his living posterity except Joseph, amounting 
 to seventy souls, are on their way to see Joseph and make 
 Egypt their home. On nearing their destination, the elo- 
 
JOSEPH IN BGYPT. 197 
 
 quent Judah, who lately overpowered Joseph with his ten- 
 der words, is sent forward by Jacob as a herald to an- 
 nounce to Joseph the approach of his father and family. 
 Joseph made ready his chariot and went to meet his 
 father in Goshen. He presented himself to the venerable 
 patriarch, and fell on his neck and wept a great while. 
 Here is an affectionate son who was not spoiled by pros- 
 perity and great promotion. Though himself a governor, 
 he remembers the deference and respect due to old age. 
 
 The effect of this meeting on the father may be gath- 
 ered from the following: "Now let me die since I have 
 seen thy face, because thou art yet alive." Here is the 
 highest exhibition of parental love. Gratitude to God and 
 surprise at seeing his long-lost son make the old man 
 willing to die. This was not a sinful wish, but the simple 
 impulse of gratitude called forth by an unexpected event. 
 
 The last recorded act of Joseph's eventful and useful 
 life is one of filial affection : the fulfillment of a promise 
 made his father to bury him in Canaan. How naturally 
 striking the desire of Jacob "old and dim" to be buried 
 with his fathers, and how ready and faithful his royal son 
 was to recognize and acquiesce in his dying request ! 
 Strange event that Joseph should be permitted to be at the 
 death scene of his father. Singular Providence truly that 
 led Jacob down to Egypt to die in the presence of his 
 royal son ! Never were sincerer affection and grief lav- 
 ished on a fond parent by a dutiful and affectionate son 
 than in this instance ! Death having done its work Joseph 
 ordered his Egyptian physicians to embalm his father. 
 After forty days had expired for perfecting the embalm- 
 ing, he was deposited in the royal catacombs or pyramids 
 for seventy days more, the usual time the Egyptians 
 mourned their dead. This with Joseph was more an act 
 of filial respect than from any heathen superstition. The 
 days of mourning being ended, Joseph prepares further to 
 carry out the paternal wish. He notifies Pharaoh of his 
 father's request, and Pharaoh said, "Go up and bury thy 
 father." 
 
 The funeral cortege on this occasion was imposing! 
 
198 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 It consisted of Joseph, his eleven brethren, and all the 
 adult members of Jacob's large posterity, who were the 
 chief mourners: then the princes and nobles of the royal 
 family and Pharaoh's servants with splendid chariots and 
 horses, "a very great company !" This costly and splendid 
 funeral hints to us in how great esteem Joseph was held. 
 Day after day and week after week this vast procession 
 with reverent tread moved along toward Canaan. Jacob's 
 countrymen show their high respect for the deceased pa- 
 triarch by detaining the funeral train at the threshing floor 
 of Atad, and there mourned for him seven days, "with a 
 great and very sore lamentation." Having reached the 
 old family burying-ground in the field of Machpelah in 
 Mamre, "which Abraham bought for a possession of a 
 burying-place." Here with suitable ceremony they de- 
 posited the precious remains of the illustrious patriarch 
 alongside Leah his wife and the other ancestral and emi- 
 nent dead, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Rebecca. 
 
 Having discharged this last painful duty to a loving 
 father, he returns to Egypt and resumes his important 
 duties and responsibilities. Fealty to duty is his watch- 
 word. No attractions of home could detain him or cause 
 him to be false to his engagements. 
 
 Strange to say that after his return, his brethren who 
 yet remain in Egypt are apprehensive that Joseph, now 
 that his father is dead, might decide on punishing them in 
 some way for their unfraternal conduct to him when a 
 child. A guilty conscience needs no accuser, it is said. 
 They knew that they richly deserved it. But generous 
 brother that he was, he allays their fears in the following 
 words: "Fear not, for am I in the place of God? But as 
 for you, ye thought evil against me, but God meant it 
 for good, to bring to pass as it is this day, to save much 
 people alive. Therefore fear not; I will nourish you and 
 your little ones." And he comforted them, and spake 
 kindly unto them. "Great and magnanimous man thus to 
 requite evil with good ! thus to love his enemies, heaping 
 coals of fire on their heads? This is the highest and 
 surest test of a true and really great man, and no mere 
 
JOSEPH IN EGYPT. 199 
 
 man ever gave the world a nobler exhibition of true great- 
 ness than did Joseph. 
 
 The rest of his life was spent in Egypt, having seen 
 three generations of his own children. He lived to the 
 green and happy old age of one hundred and ten years. 
 Eighty years of his vigorous and intellectual manhood 
 were spent in public life in a most trying and onerous 
 position. It has been said well and truthfully that "man 
 is the architect of his own character." This fact was pre- 
 eminently exemplified in Joseph. He was the builder of 
 his own character, and that character has bequeathed 
 him an immortality of fame more enduring than brass or 
 the pyramids of the historic country he ruled so wisely 
 and well. Were I asked to sum up the salient points of 
 that magnificent life, I would say they are the following: 
 first and most prominent was his piety, the foundation of 
 his colossal character; and his fidelity to principle under 
 the molding influence of that piety was "the Corinthian 
 column" in his character; unswerving and persistent in- 
 tegrity to duty the keystone in the arch of its vast dome, 
 and these were so consummately blended and graded as 
 to give harmony, porportion, and symmetry to the stately 
 edifice. His affections, filial and fraternal, his generosity 
 and courtesy, with his intellectual culture, form the mo- 
 saics, paintings, and statuary of his temple character. 
 These together in their order and structure afford a char- 
 acter the most finely poised and balanced that has appeared 
 in the records of human history. There it stands a model 
 for all ages, magnificent in its simple Hebrew grandeur ! 
 
 Young gentlemen, you are living in an age of wide- 
 spread corruption in private life and in public life. The 
 public conscience is in a sad state of decline. There is 
 fraud and peculation. Honesty has been at a discount. 
 A premium has been offered to vice and theft. Profanity, 
 intemperance, and Sabbath desecration are shockingly 
 common! The judicial bench has been mercenary with 
 but rare exceptions; the bar is mercenary. It has little 
 or no conscience. One would be led to think that the 
 chief business of the bar was to defeat the ends of 
 
200 STORY OF MY LIFE, 
 
 justice. Politics are in a fearfully corrupt state, they 
 are absolutely venal. Public sentiment in the political 
 world has been so morbid that a good and pure man 
 has been thought unfit for civil office, lest he might 
 become corrupted by promotion. We may without a 
 figure of speech pronounce them rotten. The gigan- 
 tic frauds and thefts perpetrated by men of reputed 
 integrity in the name of law, as in the "Credit Mobilier 
 Stocks," "Back-pay," etc., will be sufficient to remind 
 you of our strong affirmation. But this corruption is 
 not confined to public life; it is notorious also in private 
 and social life. Infidelity in the marriage relation — God's 
 appointed means to save and perpetuate the race — the 
 most sacred of all earthly relations, with many it has been 
 lowered for the most trivial causes till it has almost be- 
 come a farce. Foeticide and infanticide have become 
 shockingly common in high life and low life. These and 
 other evils are so fearfully prevalent that a revulsion of 
 feeling may be hoped to arise against them from the conse- 
 quences these very excesses are entailing upon us. Reform 
 ought to be, and we hope is becoming, the watchword. 
 A revolution is sure to come in time, even if it be at the 
 cost of a terrible uprising that will shake our country and 
 society from center to circumference ! We need a gener- 
 ation of good and wise men, of pure and elevated women; 
 men of sterling principle; yes, men who love and fear 
 God. Remember who has said, "When the righteous are 
 authority the people rejoice; but when the wicked bear 
 rule the people mourn." 
 
 One of the most serious hindrances to such a life 
 among the young of this land is, that so few young men 
 are religious. The young man says I will have no com- 
 pany of my own age. I shall appear singular; I shall 
 be the subject of remark and ridicule among my compan- 
 ions. This may be true; but think of Joseph! He was 
 utterly alone; neither those of his own or any age to sym- 
 pathize with him. It mattered not with him, though all 
 the world were against him. No one could be religious 
 and good for him. If there be none to go with you, the 
 
THE SUPREME DEITY OF CHRIST. 201 
 
 more need that you be that single one and give the world 
 a living illustration of a true and good man. Your ex- 
 ample may save others. Aim then at the highest intel- 
 lectual excellence, but fear and love God all the time. 
 Never descend to a mean or base act, for you are not 
 your own; you belong to God, to your country, and to 
 humanity. In conclusion, we invite you to study Joseph's 
 character carefully, imitate it scrupulously, and live it 
 grandly. 
 
 THE SUPREME DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 An Essay read before the Spokane Falls District Ministerial Association 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at Oakesdale, W. T., July 14, 1S87. 
 
 [The above theme was assigned me by the Ministerial Association of 
 Spokane District. My brethren thought the essay of sufficient merit to 
 pay for its publication. I therefore consented to allow them to make this 
 use of it. My prayer is that God's blessing may go with it on its hum- 
 ble mission.! 
 
 "Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" 
 I am well aware that it will not be possible for me to 
 give an exhaustive treatment of this theme in so brief an 
 essay. I will therefore confine myself largely to an ex- 
 amination of the attitude of Unitarianism to this doc- 
 trine. I address myself then to the task of showing that 
 modern Unitarianism is utterly inconsistent with New 
 Testament Christianity, and the demands of sinful human 
 nature. It might do tolerably well as a religion for an 
 unfallen race, but has little or no place in a world like 
 ours. But I must not misstate the views of the Unitarian 
 Church on the question of Christ's place in the New Tes- 
 tament religion. They hold, against the Evangelical 
 view, that Christ is only a great prophet and religious 
 teacher, higher than Moses or any of the prophets of 
 Old Testament times, but only human so far as His birth 
 and mission into our world are concerned. They deny 
 the vicarious death and atonement of Christ, but hold 
 that His death and life were only exemplary. They 
 treat the cognate doctrine of depravity as a simple mis- 
 fortune to be rectified by good example, and needing no 
 
202 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 vicarious offering for its cure and removal. So, of course, 
 the doctrine of spiritual regeneration or the New Birth 
 is frittered away and becomes a nullity or a mere fancy. 
 In order to maintain these dogmas of Unitarianism — for 
 they are extremely dogmatic and zealous in their propa- 
 gation — they are flooding the country with their tracts 
 and sermons with a zeal equal to modern Adventism. 
 And to maintain their doctrines they are driven to the 
 most unreasonable and inconsistent methods of inter- 
 pretation of the Old and New Testament that eliminate 
 all the supernatural from the Christian system, and leaves 
 it a cold and tame philosophy that makes no powerful 
 appeal to weak and fallen humanity. 
 
 I can not but feel that Unitarianism as now taught 
 and propagated is an unwarranted attack and wrong to 
 New Testament teaching, and a gross but polished insult 
 to the claims of Christ and the apostles of the early 
 Church. I propose to show that modern Unitarianism 
 and the great body of the Jewish Church of Christ's time 
 hold precisely the same views of Christ's divinity and 
 mission. The Jews of that age insisted and persisted 
 that Christ was only a prophet and temporal prince — a 
 great moral teacher. They so interpreted their own 
 Scriptures and insisted in assigning this low place for 
 their Messiah, and when He made His advent they re- 
 fused to accept Him because His high claims to divinity 
 spoiled all their fancied and false interpretations. Call 
 to mind how they became enraged at His superior claims 
 — calling Him a blasphemer because in claiming to be 
 the Son of God He made Himself equal to the Father. 
 They charged Him with being in league with the devil, 
 because He worked miracles in attestation of His claims 
 to supreme Divinity and His mission to forgive sins. 
 They opposed these pretensions by putting this question 
 to Him, "Who can forgive sins but God only?" We 
 challenge the world to show that the Jews of Christ's 
 day were not Unitarians, and that Christ asserted His 
 high claims to Deity in opposition to their charges of 
 blasphemy and His being in league with the devil. Even 
 
THE SUPREME DEITY OF CHRIST. 203 
 
 His immediate disciples were reluctant to accept this 
 view. The Savior found it exceedingly difficult to dis- 
 abuse their minds of the mistaken interpretations of their 
 own Scriptures regarding Himself and His work. Now 
 the dilemma those put themselves in who take ground 
 with the early Jews is seen in this : Christ had the finest 
 opportunity in the world to have sided with the Jewish 
 Unitarians that can be conceived. But Christ did just 
 the opposite of all this. He quoted their own Scriptures 
 to prove His high pretensions, and held them to His 
 dying hour. Now Christ was either what He claimed to 
 be, or an impostor of the worst type. It will not do to 
 say that the Jews misunderstood His claims. He never 
 charged them with misunderstanding His claims to Di- 
 vinity. He knew that they exactly understood His pre- 
 tensions when they charged Him with being in league 
 with the devil. They did not misunderstand Him when 
 He claimed equality with the Father, and they replied, 
 "Who can forgive sins but God only?" They charged 
 Him with blasphemy because He said, "I am the Son of 
 God." If He only claimed to be the son of God in the 
 same sense that Moses, Elijah, or Isaiah claimed it, then 
 the Jews had no grounds for charging Him with blas- 
 phemy. I repeat it then, that Jesus allowed these de- 
 luded Jews to rest under the impression that He claimed 
 Divine Sonship and supreme Divinity without even an 
 attempt to correct their misconception, if misconception 
 it was. This is the most serious imputation on the sin- 
 cerity and moral character of Christ that can be con- 
 ceived, and the people called Unitarians are responsible 
 for putting Christ in this very awkward position before 
 the world. There seems to us no way of escape from 
 charging Christ with gross insincerity and imposture, or 
 else admit His high claim to Divinity. Trinitarians with 
 great unanimity prefer the latter view. They prefer 
 most decidedly to stand with the plain New Testament 
 account and be classed with the so-called Dark Ages, than 
 to be numbered with those who charge Christ by violent 
 implication with deception and imposture. That there 
 
204 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 is no alternative but this we are well convinced. That 
 the Jews and the Unitarians occupy common ground on 
 the Divinity of Christ there can be no question. That I 
 am not alone in this view, I have just been reading a 
 Unitarian tract that claims Moses, Abraham, and others 
 as Unitarians. The early apostles — especially John and 
 Paul, who were Jewish converts and understood the Jew- 
 ish faith much better than we — are explicit in their 
 teachings in regard to the proper Divinity of Christ, and 
 were set for the defense of this cardinal doctrine of the 
 New Testament. John especially was eminently quali- 
 fied by nature and grace and intimacy with Christ to 
 write on this theme. His Gospel is especially devoted 
 to the proof and defense of Christ's Divine Sonship and 
 equality with the Father. Does it seem strange that 
 modern Unitarianism should have exhibited such singu- 
 lar zeal and questionable ingenuity to cast doubt on the 
 genuineness of the Gospel of St John? This is the last 
 and only hope of weakening the Scripture teaching on 
 this point. They well know if St. John's Gospel is genu- 
 ine that their attempt will be vain to rob the Christian 
 world of their faith. But the quickened researches, 
 caused by this suspicion of Infidelity and Unitarianism, 
 has only corroborated the genuineness and authenticity 
 of this Gospel more and more. To show what straits 
 they are driven to in their interpretations, I would call 
 your attention to the fact that I have in my possession a 
 tract published by the Unitarian Publishing Society that 
 undertakes the amusing task of proving that the Apostle 
 Paul was a Unitarian. This is a hint to reflecting people 
 of the hopelessness of their cause and their methods to 
 desseminate their views. It were a much easier task to 
 prove that Caleb Stetson, the author of the above tract, 
 is a Trinitarian. Hear Paul the Unitarian ( ?) : "Where- 
 fore God hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a 
 name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every 
 knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in 
 earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue 
 should confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the 
 
THE SUPREME DEITY OF CHRIST. 205 
 
 Father." Here Paul ascribes the term Lord or Jehovah 
 to Him, and divine honors and worship when all knees 
 in heaven and earth are to bow to Him. Paul the Uni- 
 tarian ( ?) says (Col. i, 16) : "By Him all things were 
 created that are in heaven and that are in the earth." 
 
 The benedictions used by Paul in all his epistles 
 show how much of a Unitarian he was. For example: 
 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
 God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with 
 you all." "Grace be to you and peace from God our 
 Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ." In all these 
 benedictions Christ is always connected with the Father 
 or Holy Ghost or alone, which is a remarkable fact if 
 Paul was a Unitarian. If he was a Unitarian and made 
 this constant use of the name of Christ in the benedic- 
 tion, why do Unitarians so uniformly abstain from using 
 the name of Christ in the benediction and saying grace 
 at the table? It might be well for them to rise and ex- 
 plain why this uniform omission. Are they opposed to 
 paying such honor to Christ? Was it idolatry in Paul 
 to do so? The other apostles are in accord with Paul 
 the Unitarian (?) in this practice. 
 
 Unitarians have little sympathy or confidence in the 
 Gospel of St. John. Let us quote a few passages, and it 
 will appear why they have a decided preference for St. 
 Matthew and Mark. John says: "In the beginning 
 was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
 Word was God. All things were made by Him, and 
 without Him was not anything made that was made." 
 If we call to mind that the great body of the Jews were 
 Monotheists or Unitarians, and assailed Christ's proper 
 Divinity, you will see why John should thus explicitly 
 declare His pre-existence and His creatorship of the 
 worlds, and why our Unitarian friends are so anxious 
 and busy to cast discredit on the credibility and authen- 
 ticity of John's Gospel. Suppose, however, that Christ 
 was only a great prophet like Moses; by what law of in- 
 terpretation could we say of Moses, "In the beginning 
 was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
 
206 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 Word was God/' or that "all things were made by Him," 
 etc. This man John enjoyed an intimacy with Christ 
 and an insight into His character that Matthew and 
 Mark did not enjoy. It is not strange then that John 
 should have been chosen of all the twelve to refute the 
 errors and false interpretations of the Jews of Christ's 
 time. While the Jews were ridiculing the claims of 
 Christ to Divine Sonship, and sought to kill Him because 
 in claiming "God for His Father He made Himself 
 equal to God," John replies "that all men should honor 
 the Son even as they honor the Father. He that honor- 
 eth not the Son, honoreth not the Father." How does 
 this treatment of the Son by the Jews differ from that of 
 modern Unitarianism, which declares that He is only a 
 good man and a great prophet? I am not at all sur- 
 prised that they do not relish John's views of Christ's di- 
 vinity and office. John's faithful testimony can never be 
 shaken unless his Gospel be shown to be spurious. There 
 is nothing in Matthew or Mark or Luke that contradicts 
 these strong declarations of John, but many things that 
 corroborate and strengthen them. 
 
 Our Unitarian friends very well know that the New 
 Testament is strongly and apparently against them, and 
 they are driven to a specious and forced interpretation to 
 break the force of these Scriptures. Their main depend- 
 ence, however, is what they are pleased to call the rational 
 argument. They insist that the doctrine of Christ's mirac- 
 ulous birth is not reasonable. They undertake to refute 
 it by a course of reasoning. We think there are some 
 facts and truths that can neither be proved nor refuted by 
 reason. They are above reason. They are largely in 
 the realm of faith. Such are the eternity and existence 
 of God and the superhuman life and character of Christ. 
 He is sui generis. He is absolutely unique. He is "the 
 Alpha and Omega." Paul, who had some reputation for 
 reasoning power, said of His Divinity: "Great is the 
 mystery of Godliness," etc. 
 
 Our Unitarian friends charge us with undervaluing 
 the place of reason in religion. In this we think they do 
 
THE SUPREME DEITY OF CHRIST. 207 
 
 not fairly represent us. We believe that reason has its 
 legitimate sphere in determining most religious truths; but 
 we are quite certain that reason has its limitations, and 
 that they are quite as liable to overestimate it as we are 
 to underestimate its place in these profound theological 
 truths. 
 
 Let me give you an illustration of what I mean by the 
 legitimate sphere of reason. The Unitarians and Trini- 
 tarians alike take the Bible as the text-book of their faith 
 and religion. The Trinitarians claim that per force of 
 the rational argument, that these Scriptures contain the 
 will and mind of God to the world, that there is a har- 
 mony and consistency in the Orthodox belief that is not to 
 be found in the Unitarian view. The Bible seems clearly 
 to teach the doctrine of the fall of man and the need 
 of a Savior and regeneration. All the Jewish rites, cere- 
 monies, and sacrifices much more nearly comport with the 
 idea that Christ's death was sacrificial and vicarious, than 
 that it was simply exemplary. There is much that is ut- 
 terly unmeaning in the Old and New Testament with this 
 latter view. These Trinitarian doctrines bear a striking 
 relation to each other, forming a complete and consistent 
 system, while the opposite view utterly fails to account for 
 all these explicit declarations and rites, if Christ was only 
 a prophet and a good man. What need of keeping Christ 
 before the world in prophecy for four thousand years if 
 He was only a man? If His death was in no sense vica- 
 rious, what sense or propriety in the statement of Isaiah 
 that "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was 
 bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace 
 was upon Him and with His stripes we are healed. . . . 
 The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all?" Are 
 we to lay aside our reason here, and say this is all a fig- 
 ment, or that the prophet did not mean what he so seems 
 to mean; that God employs terms just the opposite of the 
 idea that He intended? Use this kind of interpretation 
 on any book of science or philosophy, and you will ruin 
 any author's reputation for common sense and intelli- 
 gence. But men take large liberties with the Bible in 
 
208 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 the matter of interpretation, that would not be tolerated 
 with any other book. Some one has said that men are 
 prone to search the Scriptures for what they like, much 
 more than what they need. 
 
 Unitarians make great account of the fact that they 
 preach a "liberal Christianity." This may or may not 
 be a credit to them. It depends altogether on what they 
 mean by a liberal Christianity. If it means that they 
 give their people a larger license of belief and practice 
 than Christ and the apostles did, it is extremely doubt- 
 ful whether such liberality may not be a grave blunder. 
 If by liberal "Christianity they mean charity or love 
 towards those who differ from them, it may be an excel- 
 lent thing. So far as I have been able to read their 
 writings, I think they allow a large latitude in the matter 
 of belief. I think Mr. Ingersoll would not be denied 
 fellowship in that Church to-day with his published views 
 of Chris c and the Bible. I think he is not much more 
 scurrilous and blasphemous than Theodore Parker was. 
 I think I also get the impression from a pretty extensive 
 perusal of their theological writings that they boast that 
 their views of the Christian religion are best adapted to 
 convert the world to Christ. They are so broad and tol- 
 erant that all may come under their creed and be saved. 
 We will see farther on what there is in the claim. 
 
 One of the doctrines of Trinitarianism is much ridi- 
 culed by our Unitarian friends; namely, the doctrine of 
 vicarious sacrifice or substitution. Trinitarians believe 
 that the whole Jewish ritual as to its sacrifices prefigured 
 the death of Christ. They certainly are a meaningless 
 ceremony and a most cruel expenditure of life and inno- 
 cent blood, if they do not refer to Christ's sacrifice for 
 sin. Unitarians have on their hands the task of reconcil- 
 ing all this with Divine goodness and wisdom, or of re- 
 jecting the whole Mosaic economy as a false and cruel re- 
 ligion. Take Isaiah's prophecy of the coming Messiah, 
 and note its vicarious character: "He was wounded for 
 our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities ; the 
 chastisement of our peace was upon Him and with His 
 
THB SUPRBMB DEITY OF CHRIST. 209 
 
 stripes we are healed." (Isa. lviii, 5.) It is the supremest 
 folly to undertake to break the force of this single Scrip- 
 ture for vicarious atonement, unless it can be shown that 
 some one else is meant than Christ. If the Christ of the 
 New Testament is the Messiah of Isaiah, then vicarious 
 suffering is predicated of Jesus. But Christ, after His 
 resurrection, said to His discouraged and doubting dis- 
 ciples : "These are the words which I spake unto you while 
 I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which 
 were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets 
 concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, 
 that they might understand the Scriptures; and said unto 
 them, Thus it is written and thus it behooved Christ to 
 suffer and rise from the dead the third day, and that 
 repentance and remission of sins should be preached in 
 His name among all nations." (Isa. xxiv, 44-47.) "Ought 
 not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into 
 His glory? And beginning at Moses and all the proph- 
 ets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the 
 things concerning Himself." (Ibid, xxiv, 26, 27.) By all 
 fair rules of interpretation these Scriptures refer to 
 Christ, and no torturing or refinement can rob them of 
 the commonly received meaning. The only thing for 
 liberal Christianity is to lessen the force of these explicit 
 statements of Isaiah and Christ by attacking their reason- 
 ableness. Well, this amounts to saying that Isaiah and 
 Christ employed terms that were misleading to the people 
 to whom they wrote and spoke; or else they were not 
 capable of conveying their ideas in suitable language; or 
 else they deliberately taught dangerous error. Mr. Chan- 
 ning challenges the Trinitarian body to point out "some 
 plain passages where substitutional suffering is taught." 
 We answer confidently that the above quoted passages 
 teach substitutional suffering, or nothing could teach it. 
 We are told that substitutional suffering is a reflection 
 on the Divine goodness and justice. A sufficient reply 
 to this is, that voluntary suffering for the sake of others 
 does not reflect on the Divine goodness or justice, and 
 such was Christ's sufferings for us. It pleased the Father 
 
210 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 to accept the free-will offering of His Son. We admire 
 the act of an ancient king whose son was to suffer the 
 penalty of having both his eyes put out for some crime 
 against his country, and submitted to have one of his 
 own eyes taken out to save to his son one eye. All bail 
 and suffering that men endure for their fellow-men is 
 vicarious and praiseworthy. The fallacy in this objec- 
 tion is in assuming that Trinitarians teach that God pun- 
 ished His Son for the sins of the world without His con- 
 sent. The goodness of God in consenting, and the benev- 
 olence of Christ in voluntarily offering Himself in our 
 stead are both honorable and praiseworthy. 
 
 It is asserted with great confidence and frequency by 
 so-called liberal Christianity that their religious views 
 are best calculated to foster piety and save men. They 
 rather pride themselves on their humanitarian ideas as 
 best calculated to save men from their vices. Well, this 
 is a praiseworthy boast if true, and ought to give Unita- 
 rianism great pre-eminence among men if true. I should 
 certainly be strongly inclined to become a Unitarian if it 
 were best adapted to save men from sin and reform the 
 world. Let us see how this claim accords with facts : Uni- 
 tarianism is at least two hundred and fifty years old; Dr. 
 John Lock, Dr. Samuel Clark, and Sir Isaac Newton, very 
 eminent men, accepted it. To-day there is scarcely a sect 
 so small, numerically, as they. I think they only number 
 17,000 in the United States. What are we to say of their 
 efforts to Christianize the heathen world? Where are 
 their missions? Christ and His apostles were pre-emi- 
 nently missionary. Christ's great commission runs thus: 
 "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every 
 creature." Our Unitarian friends seem to confine their 
 labors to a few cultivated people in Christian lands. We 
 submit that, with their large pretensions, this showing is 
 not very creditable in comparison with the growth of 
 Trinitarianism. This is a fact deserving of a rational 
 explanation. 
 
 I remember well, in my Own day, that there have 
 been three of four eminent Unitarian ministers, as emi- 
 
THE SUPREME DEITY OF CHRIST. 211 
 
 nent as any that now represent that Church for piety and 
 culture, who have left its ministry because they have be- 
 come well convinced of the failure of its teachings to re- 
 form men. These were Coleridge, Huntington, Frothing- 
 ham, and Hepworth. As has been said, it might do for a 
 world that had never lapsed into sin, but for a race that 
 are under the dominion of depravity it seems to be wholly 
 incapacitated to meet the case. 
 
 This leads me to call attention to an article recently 
 published by M. J. Savage, in a magazine called The 
 Forum, entitled "My Religious Experience." The writer 
 informs his readers that he was compelled to change 
 his views from Orthodoxy to Unitarianism because, in 
 his study of Darwinianism, he had come to believe that 
 "this new, ridiculed, and hated doctrine was the very truth 
 of God. I was not long in seeing that the fall and ascent 
 of man could hardly both be true. I had indeed come 
 to believe that a miraculous Christ and a supernatural 
 redemption might still be retained, though I had surren- 
 dered all faith in the supposed fact which constituted the 
 only reason for their existence. But I soon became con- 
 vinced that when evolution came in at the door, that the 
 whole Orthodox plan of salvation must go out at the win- 
 dow. ... If, therefore, the new revelation of science 
 were true, I felt sure that Evangelical Christianity could 
 not be true. ... If, instead of a perfect creation 
 followed by a catastrophe which called for a scheme of 
 redemption by way of recovery, there had been a gradual 
 and orderly evolution from the first, under the guidance 
 of an all-wise Power, then there was neither necessity 
 nor place for any of the cardinal points of the old faith." 
 
 This is the strong language of Mr. Savage, who has 
 recently become an oracle in the Unitarian Church. It 
 is a very remarkable confession, as you must see upon a 
 little reflection. He frankly confesses that he abandons 
 the Mosaic account of creation for Darwinianism. He is 
 perfectly satisfied that Charles Darwin is correct, and of 
 consequence Moses is a fable. He is much more posi- 
 tive of this than Darwin ever dared to be. If Darwin is 
 
212 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 correct, the account of a perfect creation, followed by a 
 catastrophe, is a myth, and there is no need of a scheme of 
 redemption. This is simply Mr. Savage's reason for re- 
 jecting "a miraculous Christ and a supernatural redemp- 
 tion." They are superfluous, if the Darwinian theory is 
 correct, as he firmly believes it is. This certainly is a 
 novel reason for rejecting Evangelical Christianity and 
 embracing Unitarian Christianity. I could see some rea- 
 son for rejecting the whole Bible account and teachings, 
 if the Darwinian theory were true, but why any man 
 should change his Orthodoxy for Unitarianism I can not 
 see, unless Unitarianism and Infidelity are very friendly 
 to each other. If Mr. Savage rejects the whole scheme 
 of moral redemption because Darwinianism teaches that 
 the world is growing better, morally and physically, under 
 the power of Evolution, and must have been so doing for 
 long ages past, we may ask, What must have been the 
 physical and moral condition of our world some millions 
 of years ago? And if there has never been any catas- 
 trophe, physical or moral, as he infers from the Evolution 
 hypothesis, will he please inform us how moral evil, which 
 is so widespread at present and is giving philanthropists 
 so much concern for its curtailment and cure, came to be 
 here ? Most people have a conviction that such a trouble- 
 some and unmanageable evil must have had a beginning 
 and some adequate cause. If "an orderly and gradual 
 evolution" is going on, then there is no need of either 
 Evangelical or Unitarian Christianity. God has set His 
 law in operation, and "the survival of the fittest" is certain 
 to result, according to this remarkable theory. But it is 
 not my purpose in this essay to refute the imperfect theory 
 of Mr. Darwin. I simply call attention to this singular 
 confession of Mr. Savage in a popular magazine, to show 
 that Unitarianism or Liberal Christianity, so called, seems 
 ready and generally foremost to sympathize with nearly 
 every new phase of Scientific Infidelity that arises. Now, 
 according to Mr. Savage and other Unitarians, we are 
 to believe that Darwinianism and learning are the more 
 rational and effectual means of reforming the race. Mr. 
 
THE SUPREME DEITY OF CHRIST. 213 
 
 Channing would have been as much shocked at the the- 
 ology of Mr. Savage as Mr. Ware was at the profanity of 
 Ralph Waldo Emerson's great address to the Divinity 
 School in 1838, and as the great body of the Unitarians 
 almost unanimously revolted at the shocking blasphemy 
 of Theodore Parker's sermon entitled "The Transient and 
 Permanent in Christianity" in 1841. But the Unitarianism 
 of the year 1887 endorses these blasphemous utterances of 
 Emerson and Parker. They tell us "Unitarianism grows." 
 Yes, it grows toward infidelity. Mr. Emerson withdrew 
 from the Unitarian Church because of the severe criti- 
 cisms of his Church respecting his latitudinarian views. 
 Because the best and most conservative of his denomina- 
 tion denounced his ultra and irreverent statements about 
 Jesus, he styled their protestations "puppyism." That is, 
 they were conceding too much to Orthodoxy. Now, Mr. 
 Emerson suppressed some of the most irreverent passages 
 of that famous address, either from policy or cowardice. 
 I know it is claimed for him in this omission, at the time 
 of its delivery, that the address was too long, so he omitted 
 some of it. Why did he not omit some other part and 
 give them what many Unitarians now boast was its 
 chief excellency? Unitarianism has decidedly departed 
 from the sentiments and piety of William Ellery Chan- 
 ning and Mr. W'are, and now consider, to use their own 
 language, that Emerson and Parker, who were so irrev- 
 erent in their attacks on Christ, have become to most 
 Unitarians "prophets." If Theodore Parker is an ac- 
 cepted prophet with Unitarians, then verily it does "grow;" 
 but it is a growth in irreverence and latitudinarian- 
 ism. Its recent representative body at Saratoga, N. Y., 
 had the immodesty and bad taste to air their semi-infi- 
 delity in a Methodist Church by flippant criticism of 
 Trinitarian Christianity, giving a disgusting illustration 
 of their vaunted Liberal (?) Christianity. I must say, 
 what I regret to be compelled to say of any professing 
 Christian body, that the Unitarians are the most dog- 
 matic and caustic and illiberal of all the Churches it has 
 been my misfortune to come in contact with, with possi- 
 
214 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 bly one single exception — the Campbellites. I have read 
 their tracts and sermons somewhat extensivly, and have 
 come to believe that, while they are cultured and very 
 polished, yet there is an undercurrent of innuendo, and 
 sharp sarcasm, profusely garnished with a florid rhetoric 
 to disguise the bitter animus that largely pervades their 
 tracts and sermons. I am happy to say that there are a 
 very few honorable exceptions to this rule. Ridicule of 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, of Depravity, of Future Pun- 
 ishment, of Conversion, and the proper Divinity of Christ, 
 forms the staple of most of their essays and discourses. 
 They dilate largely on morality and practical religion, 
 and are zealously careful to impress the reader and 
 hearer that they have a monopoly of all the practical 
 Christianity in the world. They do not the generous 
 thing of admitting that Trinitarians insist on a good life 
 and practical godly living as much as they do. We only 
 differ in this: Trinitarians lay more stress on Christ's 
 Divinity, the office and work of the Holy Spirit, and 
 the necessity of regeneration, but not less stress on prac- 
 tical godliness. They know, or ought to know, that this 
 is true, and they would do much to establish their claim 
 to Liberal Christianity by less of polished criticism and 
 more of the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians. 
 
 I have but one more observation to offer, and then I 
 close this essay. The forced and unnatural interpreta- 
 tions of the teachings of the Old and New Testament by 
 our Unitarian friends touching the Deity of Christ and 
 the cognate doctrines of Depravity, Regeneration, and the 
 Atonement, are so strained and unnatural that they evi- 
 dently betray the slender foundation of their faith. If 
 their interpretations are correct as against the immense 
 body of Christians of this and past centuries who are 
 quite as honest and capable of interpreting these Scrip- 
 tures, then it follows of necessity that either the Divine 
 Being made a blunder in the use of terms to convey im- 
 portant doctrines to the world, or that he intended to 
 shroud these vital truths in such' ambiguous words that 
 none but a few Unitarians of Christ's times and our day 
 
THE SUPREME DEITY OF CHRIST. 215 
 
 could possibly give their true meaning; and that Christ 
 the Great Teacher Himself did not understand their real 
 import. It is difficult to escape this conclusion if we 
 admit the views of Socinians of this day. 
 
 "When Daniel Webster was in his best moral state, 
 and when he was in the prime of his manhood, he was 
 one day dining with a company of literary gentlemen in 
 Boston. The company was composed of clergymen, law- 
 yers, physicians, statesmen, merchants, and almost all 
 classes of literary persons. During the dinner the con- 
 versation incidentally turned upon the subject of Chris- 
 tianity. Mr. Webster, as the occasion was in honor of 
 him, was expected to take a leading part in the conver- 
 sation, and he frankly stated as his religious sentiments 
 his belief in the Divinity of Christ and his dependence 
 upon the atonement of the Savior. A minister of con- 
 siderable literary reputation who sat opposite him at the 
 table looked at him and said: 'Mr. Webster, can you 
 comprehend how Jesus Christ can be both God and man ?' 
 Mr. Webster promptly and emphatically said, 'No, sir, 
 I can not comprehend it, and I would be ashamed to 
 acknowledge Him as my Savior if I could comprehend 
 it. If I could comprehend Him He could be no greater 
 than myself; and such is my conviction of accountability 
 to God, such is my sense of sinfulness before Him, and 
 such is the knowledge of my incapacity to recover myself, 
 that I feel I need a superhuman Savior/ ' 
 
 "Dr. Priestly, an eminent Unitarian minister, once 
 said to Dr. Miller, a Calvinist: 'I do not wonder that 
 you Calvinists entertain and express a strongly unfavor- 
 able opinion of us Unitarians. The truth is, there neither 
 can nor ought to be any compromise between us. If 
 you are right, we are not Christians at aee; and if 
 we are right, you are gross idolaters/ If Christ was 
 only a man we are idolaters; if He was more than a man, 
 they are infidels. If Christ was only a man or a great 
 prophet, then His pretensions and claims are the most 
 preposterous and absurd possible. His egotism and self- 
 assertion are the most disgusting and immodest of any- 
 
216 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 thing that has ever appeared in human history. It argues 
 the greatest insincerity or the grossest ignorance that 
 has ever been palmed off on the world. This conclusion 
 we feel confident can not be escaped by Socinianism in 
 any of its phases — especially by modern Unitarianism. 
 The great Trinitarian Church prefers infinitely to stand 
 for the supreme Divinity of Christ, than to be compelled 
 to take the consequences of a denial of that Divinity 
 with all its absurdities, inconsistencies, and miserable and 
 unjust concessions to Infidelity and "science falsely so 
 called." Trinitarianism has a grand history and a hopeful 
 future. On this ground she proposes to stand till dis- 
 lodged by a juster criticism and a severer logic than her 
 antagonists have ever yet employed. 
 
 THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOEE. 
 
 Josh Billings's most recent and palpable hit is thus 
 put: "I would not give five cents to hear Bob Ingersoll 
 on the mistakes of Moses; but I would give five hundred 
 dollars to hear Moses on the mistakes of Bob Ingersoll." 
 This is not only keenly witty, but is so perspicuously 
 truthful and just that if all Mr. Shaw's other fine hits 
 were lost, this alone would immortalize him as an acute 
 satirist and humorist. 
 
 There is nothing more manifest in the lectures and 
 writings of Mr. Ingersoll against Christianity than his 
 reckless misstatement of facts, unless it be his scurrility. 
 In reading his articles in the North American Review 
 a few days since, I was grealty surprised to find so many 
 unguarded statements. A few of these I beg leave to 
 present in two or three brief articles. 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll asks : "Why did not Christ tell His dis- 
 ciples, and through them the world, that man should not 
 persecute for opinion' sake his fellow-man? Why did 
 He not cry, You shall not persecute in My name; you 
 shall not burn and torment those who differ from you 
 in creed?" This, strange to say, is just what Christ did 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGBRSOLL. 217 
 
 command His disciples not to do. When the Samaritans 
 refused to entertain Christ because He was a Jew, James 
 and John said, "Lord, wilt Thou that we command fire 
 to come down from heaven and consume them as Elias 
 did?" but He (Christ) rebuked them and said: "Ye know 
 not what manner of spirit ye are of, for the Son of man 
 is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." 
 (Luke ix, 51, 55.) Again: "If any man hear My words 
 and believe not, I judge him not, for I come not to judge 
 the world, but to save the world." (John xii, 47.) Also 
 in Mark ix, 38, 40. Do n't fail to read it. 
 
 Again Mr. Ingersoll asks : "Why did not Christ plainly 
 say, I am the Son of God?" He did, as plainly as lan- 
 guage can convey it. In Matt, xxvi, 63, 64: "And the 
 high priest answered and said unto Him, I adjure Thee 
 by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the 
 Christ, the Son of God? Jesus saith unto him, Thou 
 hast said." Then they charged Him with "blasphemy," 
 because He said He was the Son of God. Again Matt, 
 xxvii, 43 : "He trusted in God. Let Him deliver Him now, 
 if He will have Him; for He said I am the Son of God." 
 Again John v, 18 : "Therefore the Jews sought the more 
 to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but 
 said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal 
 with God." Again John x, 36 : "Say ye of Him whom the 
 Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou 
 blasphemeth because I am the Son of God?" And again 
 John v, 23: Jesus said, "He that honoreth not the Son, 
 honoreth not the Father." 
 
 These questions were doubtless asked by Mr. Inger- 
 soll to throw discredit on the teachings and character of 
 Christ. Mr. I either knew the questions he put con- 
 tained a falsehood, or else he shows his extreme ignorance 
 of Christ's teachings. In either case he is highly culpable 
 and censurable. How can any man in this age expect 
 to have the confidence and respect of intelligent and honest 
 men who is guilty of such misstatements? such as every 
 Sunday-school boy or girl is perfectly familiar with; or 
 who that is so consummately ignorant of the religion he 
 
218 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 attacks as to make in a grave quarterly review such ut- 
 terly reckless statements can be relied on? It is an open 
 insult to the intelligence and morals of the age we live in. 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll again in his first article asks some other 
 questions for a like purpose, some of them calculated to 
 convey a wrong impression with the uninformed, and 
 some of them extremely silly and puerile. Here is a 
 sample : "Why did not Christ explain the doctrine of the 
 Trinity ?" We answer for the best of reasons. If He had, 
 Mr. Ingersoll has not capacity to have understood it. 
 "Why did Christ not tell the manner of baptism that was 
 pleasing unto Him?" Evidently because the manner or 
 mode was unimportant. He was, however, careful to tell 
 us the kind "of baptism that was pleasing unto Him." 
 See Acts i, 5 : "For John truly baptized with water, but 
 ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." 
 
 "Why did not Christ say something positive, definite, 
 and satisfactory about another world?" He did. In the 
 parable of the rich man and the beggar He was very posi- 
 tive and "definite," and to most people "satisfactory." In 
 John's Gospel xiv, 1, 2, he said to His disciples, and 
 "through them to all the world:" "Let not your heart be 
 troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in Me. In My 
 Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so I 
 would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for 
 you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come 
 again and receive you unto Myself." And in the Sermon 
 on the Mount, the Savior said: "Blessed are the poor in 
 spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are 
 the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are they 
 that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the 
 kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile 
 you and persecute you and shall say all manner of evil 
 against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceed- 
 ing glad, for great is your reward in heaven!" Now 
 what could be more "positive, definite, and saisfactory" 
 than the above? 
 
 Again Mr. Ingersoll says : "He [Christ] came to make 
 a revelation, and what did He reveal ? Love thy neighbor 
 
THB MISTAKES OF INGBRSOLL. 219 
 
 as thyself? That was in the Old Testament. Love the 
 Lord thy God with all thy heart? That was in the Old 
 Testament. Return good for evil? That was said by 
 Buddha seven hundred years before He was born." Christ 
 said, "Before Abraham was I am." John said: "In the 
 beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 
 and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning 
 with God. All things were made by Him; and without 
 Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was 
 life, and the life was the light of men." Christ was the 
 Jehovah of the Old Testament. He did recognize the Old 
 Testament and improve it by commanding His followers 
 "to love their enemies." But where did Buddha get "re- 
 turn good for evil ?" Verily likely from Mosaic tradition. 
 He resembled Mr. Ingersoll very much in one thing; 
 about all the really good and meritorious things he has 
 said and written he got directly or indirectly from the 
 Bible. He shines by borrowed light. One thing Christ 
 did reveal that Mr. Ingersoll forgot, or did not care to 
 mention, is the true cause of atheism and infidelity, viz. : 
 "This is the condemnation; that light is come into the 
 world, and men love darkness rather than light, because 
 their deeds are evil." 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll again and again assumes and reiterates 
 the statement, that God gave nobody but the Jews and 
 early Christians a Bible or Revelation. This, I suspect, 
 is another of his hasty and extravagant assumptions. I 
 can not believe that this is the position held by the intelli- 
 gent Biblical students of this age. If Mr. Ingersoll and 
 his admirers will read with care and candor the first chap- 
 ter of Romans, especially from the eighteenth verse to the 
 close, they will make the wonderful discovery that all 
 heathen nations at some time in their history had a reve- 
 lation equal to the Jews ; but from abuse and neglect have 
 lost it ; and whatever of truth is to be found among them, 
 such as the wise and good precepts of Buddha, Zoroaster, 
 Laotsi, Confucius, or Plato, Socrates, Seneca, and Cicero 
 among the Greeks and Romans, are what is left of that 
 Revelation. Such expressions in this first chapter of 
 
220 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 Romans as: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven 
 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who 
 hold the truth in unrighteousness;" "they are without ex- 
 cuse;" "when they knew God they worshiped Him not as 
 God, but became vain in their imaginations, and their fool- 
 ish heart was darkened;" "they changed the glory of the 
 uncorruptible [incorruptible] God into an image made like 
 to corruptible man," etc.; "who changed the truth of God 
 into a lie and worshiped and served the creature more 
 than the Creator." We are here told God "revealed it to 
 them from heaven," and that these Gentiles "held the truth 
 in unrighteousness;" that is, mixed it with error and sin; 
 "when they knew God they refused to worship Him as 
 God;" "they changed the glory of the true God to man- 
 worship and idolatry;" "they changed the truth of God" — 
 His revelation — "into a lie," or to pantheism. Now if 
 they thus changed "the glory and truth of God" into lies 
 and idolatry, they must first have had it revealed before 
 they could change it. It may here be observed that the 
 Gentile or heathen nations lost their Revelation by treat- 
 ing it as Mr. Ingersoll and the rejectors of Christian 
 Revelation are likely to lose theirs; by despising and 
 abusing it. 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll tells us he can see no "plan" or "de- 
 sign" in the universe. He claims that the universe "always 
 was, and forever will be." It is "self-existent." "The 
 mind of every thoughtful man is forced to one of two 
 conclusions: either that the universe is self-existent, or 
 that it was created by a self-existent Being. To my mind 
 there are far more difficulties in the second hypothesis 
 than in the first." Of course "the universe is self- 
 existent," or "it was created by a self-existent Being." 
 It is very difficult to argue with a "mind" so constituted 
 that it can see "no plan" or "design" in the universe; or 
 with a mind that feels it is more probable that matter is 
 self-existent than that mind is self-existent; that the earth 
 is eternal and God is not. He makes light of Paley's 
 argument of design from the discovery of the watch. 
 To him it is much more probable that the watch was self- 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 221 
 
 existent than that it had a designer; or to state it more 
 forcibly, it is a more rational "hypothesis" to his "mind" 
 that the watch made the man, than that the man made 
 the watch. Now the only forcible point I can see in Mr. 
 Ingersoll's philosophy or theory of the universe is, that a 
 mind constituted as he says his is, that his mind appears 
 to have been created without any intellectual or moral 
 "plan" or "design." It reminds one very forcibly of the 
 theory, "whether Jonah swallowed the whale, or the whale 
 swallowed Jonah." The Atheistic theory of the universe 
 is, that Jonah swallowed the whale; and the Theistic 
 hyopthesis is, that the whale swallowed Jonah. Some 
 minds are so constituted (and among them notably Mr. 
 Ingersoll's ) that the former hypothesis is more rational 
 than the latter. What is to be done with such mental 
 anomalies ? We will be compelled to consign them to the 
 agnostic limbo of 'the unknowable." The scientific 
 method is wholly at a loss to account for it. 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll in his skip and hop method of writing 
 against the Bible has some fault to find with the Deca- 
 logue. He says : "Of course it is admitted that most of 
 the Ten Commandments are wise and just. In passing 
 it may be well enough to say that the (first) command- 
 ment . . . was the absolute death of Art." This "of 
 course" is a most astounding discovery ! It is more than 
 probable that a mind constituted as Mr. Ingersoll's can 
 see no "plan" or "design" in the First Commandment 
 only to discourage Art. This to his "mind" was Jehovah's 
 supreme purpose in giving this command to Moses. 
 
 The other serious charge he brings against the Deca- 
 logue is, that the Tenth Commandment places "woman on 
 an exact equality with other property." The way he 
 reaches this remarkable conclusion is, that in this com- 
 mand aimed at the sin of covetousness God seems to have 
 made the mistake of classifying woman among the list of 
 things likely to be coveted. This makes it clear to "the 
 
 mind" of Mr. I that God designed woman to be a 
 
 chattel. Now there is some ground to suspect that Mr. 
 Ingersoll has secret objections to the other eight com- 
 
222 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 mandments if the whole truth were known. I have a 
 distinct remembrance, some years ago, of reading in a 
 paper called the Truth Seeker an article from the pen of 
 Colonel Ingersoll advocating most zealously, in his best 
 vein, the justice, morality, and propriety of opening the 
 mails of the United States to the carrying and disseminat- 
 ing corrupting and obscene literature among the rising 
 generation of this great Republic. He wrote bitter things 
 against the Congress of the United States, because they 
 did not see the matter as he and the Infidel League of the 
 country saw it. A man who openly advocates the freedom 
 of the mails to all the obscene paintings and pamphlets 
 of this corrupt age can not be suspected of having a very 
 high regard for the command which says, "Thou shalt 
 not commit adultery," or "Thou shalt not covet they neigh- 
 bor's wife." Nor can much stress be laid on his pretended 
 abhorrence "of polygamy," after his averments advocat- 
 ing the freedom of the mails to all the vile slum of liber- 
 tinism and of all the houses of assignation in the nation. 
 He then caps the climax of his blasphemous allusions to 
 the Decalogue by saying, "So far as we know Jehovah 
 kept only one of these Commandments — he worshiped no 
 other God." One would have thought that the Appletons 
 would have exhibited more respect for the moral sense 
 of their readers, than to have invited this ribald joker to 
 prepare an article on the Christian religion for the North 
 American Review. But they did it; and these are some 
 of the points of this supposed able defense of this Chief 
 Apostle of American Infidelity. 
 
 While on this point it may be proper to reply to Mr. 
 Ingersoll's strongest point against the Bible — it certainly 
 is his most plausible and forcible argument — viz. : his 
 assault on the apparent sanction of the institution of 
 polygamy by the Bible. Judge Black's reply does not 
 satisfy Mr. Ingersoll and probably some others. It is this : 
 The Old Testament neither commanded nor prohibited 
 polygamy; but only discouraged it. The fact is clear that 
 God did not command it; but it is not so clear that He 
 did not prohibit it by suitable moral enactments. In 
 
THB MISTAKES OF INGBRSOLL. 223 
 
 Matthew, nineteenth chapter, we have the following : "The 
 Pharisees also came to Him [Christ], tempting Him, and 
 saying unto Him : Is it lawful for a man to put away his 
 wife for every cause? He answered: Have ye not read 
 that He which made them male and female, and said for 
 this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall 
 cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? 
 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, 
 therefore, God hath joined together let no man put asun- 
 der. They say unto Him, Why did Moses then command 
 to give a writing of divorcement? He saith to them: 
 Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered 
 you to put away your wives ; but from the beginning it was 
 not so. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away 
 his wife except it be for fornication and shall marry 
 another committeth adultery, and whosoever marrieth her 
 that is put away doth commit adultery." 
 
 This argument of Christ with the Pharisees assumes 
 that marriage was a Divine institution, and that it con- 
 sisted in the union of one man and one woman. He cre- 
 ated them at "the beginning male and female," and "they 
 twain" became "one flesh." In the Old as well as in the 
 New Testament the terms husband and wife, in the singu- 
 lar, are constantly occurring. If polygamy had been the 
 Divine intention, there would have been more than one 
 woman created at the beginning. Again the equality of 
 the sexes with a slight preponderance of the males as to 
 numbers, clearly shows the Divine purpose in favor of 
 monogamy. And this equality is world-wide. Dr. Paley 
 makes the pertinent remark on this argument of Christ: 
 "If whoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, 
 the first wife being alive, is no less guilty of adultery; 
 because the adultery does not consist in the repudiation 
 of the first wife; for however cruel and unjust that may be 
 it is not adultery; but entering into a second marriage dur- 
 ing the legal existence and obligation of the first." "It 
 was not so," says Christ, "in the beginning." If there 
 ever was a time in the history of the race when polygamy 
 could have the semblance of an excuse, it was in the in- 
 
224 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 fancy of the race, where rapid multiplication was appa- 
 rently called for. Wherefore then is it mentioned in the 
 Old Testament that certain Bible characters had more 
 than one wife? We answer by another question: why 
 do all honest historians chronicle things that are not cred- 
 itable to nations and individuals, without commenting on 
 the justice or morals of their practices? Evidently not 
 to sanction their wrongs, but to be truthful historians. 
 It is also quite evident that Paul's injunction that bishops 
 and deacons are to be husbands of one wife is in accord 
 with the early instructions and practice of the ancient 
 Church in its best estate. Mr. Ingersoll asks why a little 
 legislation on the subject of polygamy would not have 
 been good to have discouraged the practice? We say 
 again, that Christ affirms that it was so "in the beginning.' , 
 We suppose that this question of polygamy was a very 
 difficult one to handle then as now, because those who had 
 the largest harems were often their kings and legislators. 
 It would be quite as pertinent for Mr. Ingersoll to charge 
 the American nation as favoring Mormon polygamy be- 
 cause they have not summarily suppressed it, as to charge 
 God and the Jews with the sin of polygamy. The fact is, 
 that polygamy was and still is an Oriental vice, and a 
 hundred-fold more prevalent among the Gentile nations of 
 the East than among the Jews; and yet, strange to say, 
 he has not one word of condemnation for it anywhere 
 else but among the hated Jews ! This is a very singular 
 
 mental phenomenon in Mr. I and his sympathizers. 
 
 Reflective people often wonder why this unjust discrimi- 
 nation ! There is a cause. The whole question of polyg- 
 amy is near akin to the great social evil that to-day afflicts 
 and disgraces all lands, civilized and uncivilized. Human 
 depravity is the cause, and the fault is not with the Bible 
 nor the God of the Bible. Why does not Mr. Ingersoll 
 use his glib pen and fascinating oratory in abating these 
 nuisances that Christianity is in no way accountable for, 
 and let the poor Jews rest awhile? They doubtless are 
 guilty of many wrong things, and have enough to bear; 
 but "they are not sinners above all other'' nations, that 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 225 
 
 they should be gibbeted by a class of men who are for- 
 ever prating of their toleration and liberalism. One of the 
 mistakes of Moses was not the common one of Colonel 
 Ingersoll, of constantly berating the religion of other 
 nations. He said harder things of his own brethren, the 
 Jews, than he ever did of the Gentiles. Some people have 
 an idea that it would be a most seemly thing for Mr. 
 Ingersoll to devote the residue of his life against the mis- 
 takes and vices of some of the other great religions of the 
 world, but especially against the vices of polygamy, intem- 
 perance, and libertinism of his own country, and let the 
 Jews have a little rest from eternal punishment, so far as 
 he appears able to visit it on them. Or are we to infer 
 that he will continue his favorite enjoyment of hurling his 
 anathemas on the Jews to all eternity? 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll asks : "Why were Jewish people as wicked, 
 cruel, and ignorant with a revelation from God as other 
 nations without it?" The only trouble with this question 
 is that it is not true. Some Jews doubtless were "wicked, 
 cruel, and ignorant," but not so cruel, wicked, and igno- 
 rant as the nations around them generally were. He 
 might as well ask, why are the people of the United States 
 and Great Britain as wicked, cruel, and ignorant as the 
 people of China, India, and Africa? Every one knows 
 how much force there would be in such a question. There 
 is as much reason as in the other. 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll tells us that "the old argument," that the 
 early Christians and apostles "were either good men or 
 bad men" is not "logical." He says "there is, at least, 
 one other class — the mistaken, and both of these classes 
 may belong to this. Thousands of most excellent people 
 have been deceived." "There was in all probability such 
 a man as Jesus Christ. He may have lived in Jerusalem. 
 He may have been crucified; but that He was the Son of 
 God, or that He was raised from the dead and ascended 
 bodily to heaven has never been, and in the nature of 
 things can never be, substantiated." 
 
 Now the concession here made by Mr. I needs 
 
 to be noted. First, that the apostles were good men; and 
 15 
 
226 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 secondly, that such a man as Jesus Christ lived in Jeru- 
 salem and was crucified. This is an important admission 
 for Christianity and an unfortunate one for Infidelity. 
 While they were good men they were in Mr. Ingersoll's 
 opinion "mistaken." Mistaken in what? Of course in 
 the matter of Christ's miracles, resurrection, and ascen- 
 sion. In matters of sight, hearing, and feeling. Let us 
 see. Who were the apostles who were thus "mistaken," 
 or deceived? Matthew, a shrewd custom-house officer; 
 Peter, James, and John, good, sound, common-sense fisher- 
 men; Luke, a cultured physician, and St. Paul, a learned 
 Jew with keenest metaphysical acumen. Now these are 
 the men Mr. Ingersoll tells you were ''mistaken" in these 
 facts of sight, hearing, and feeling. They claim most 
 positively to have witnessed His astonishing miracles, His 
 resurrection and ascension. Now if eyesight, hearing, and 
 touch are not to be relied on, what kind of evidence may 
 we depend on to establish any fact? Certainly if any evi- 
 dence borders on the infallible, it is the evidence of the 
 senses. It is morally and intellectually certain that such 
 men could not all be deceived in their harmonious and 
 concurrent testimony of those recorded facts of the Gos- 
 pel ! Most intelligent and educated men of this age be- 
 lieve in "the old argument of Christianity," that "the 
 apostles were either good men or bad men." They see 
 great force in it. They must have been false or true wit- 
 nesses — not "mistaken" witnesses. This is precisely the 
 Apostle Paul's argument for the resurrection of Christ. 
 "If Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain, and 
 your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false wit- 
 nesses of God, because we have testified of God, that He 
 raised up Christ whom He raised not up." Paul here, 
 who was no novice in polemics, takes the ground squarely 
 that they were either true or "false," and not "mistaken" 
 witnesses. He does not ask Mr. Ingersoll for his charitable 
 construction that they were good men, but "mistaken." He 
 does not thank him for the insinuation, that he and his fel- 
 low apostles were fools and simpletons. He admits frankly 
 that he and his fellow apostles were either good men or very 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 227 
 
 bad men; either true or false, and nothing more nor less. 
 If Mr. Ingersoll's position be true, that these were good 
 men, but "mistaken," then no matters of fact requiring 
 eye and ear witnesses are to be relied on, and you may at 
 once abolish all your courts of justice where matters of 
 fact are to be settled by the senses. But this is too absurd 
 a proposition to be entertained by any but a man who be- 
 lieves that it is more probable that "matter is eternal" 
 than that mind is, or that this "earth is eternal and self- 
 existent," than that God is eternal and self-existent. 
 
 We have this other remarkable statement from the pen 
 of Mr. Ingersoll : "For the man Christ, . . . mistaken 
 though He was, I have the highest admiration and respect. 
 That man did not, as I believe, claim a miraculous origin ; 
 He did not pretend to heal the sick or raise the dead. He 
 claimed simply to be a man, and taught His fellow-men 
 that love is stronger than hate." 
 
 What was it in the man Christ that excites Mr. Inger- 
 soll's "nighest admiration and respect?" It certainly must 
 have been the fact that Christ "taught His fellow-men that 
 love is stronger than hate." Of course His life illustrated 
 this. It was doubtless Christ's elevated morals and intelli- 
 gence. These have commanded the "highest admiration 
 and respect" of the greatest infidels of every age since 
 Christ. But what was Christ mistaken about? Mr. 
 
 I says, "mistaken though He was." It must have 
 
 been about His claims to Divinity — to a supernatural 
 "origin;" to working miracles, raising the dead and heal- 
 ing the sick; for Mr. Ingersoll, if we are to believe what 
 he has said in these articles, has no high "admiration and 
 respect" for miracles or the supernatural. But he tells us 
 in the same breath in which he expresses his "highest 
 admiration and respect" for "the man Christ," that in 
 his belief Christ did not "claim a miraculous origin; He 
 did not pretend to heal the sick or raise the dead. He 
 claimed simply to be a man, and taught His fellow-men 
 that love is stronger than hate." What was He mistaken 
 
 about then? Will Mr. I tell us? But where did 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll learn that fact, that Christ never "claimed a 
 
228 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 miraculous origin ;" that He never professed "to heal the 
 sick or raise the dead?" If He learned this anywhere, 
 it must have been from the Gospels, which are the only 
 books that record His life and doings. But on the other 
 hand, if Christ did not claim to be supernatural and to 
 work miracles, then Mr. Ingersoll ought be the best satis- 
 fied man with "the man Christ" to be found anywhere 
 in this country, for He "taught His fellow-men that love 
 is stronger than hate," and illustrated it too. 
 
 We might have some respect for Mr. Ingersoll's high 
 "admiration and respect" for Jesus of Nazareth if he 
 had not at other times and places said ugly things of Him. 
 I quote the following: "Christianity . . . has verified 
 the awful declaration of its Founder — a declaration that 
 wet with blood the sword He came to bring, and made 
 the horizon of a thousand years lurid with the fagot's 
 flames." And this other bitter and false assertion : "As a 
 matter of fact the New Testament is more decidedly in 
 favor of human slavery than the Old." Not that I believe 
 or admit that the Old favors human slavery; but if Christ 
 ever did favor human slavery, then how could Mr. Inger- 
 soll or anybody else have "the highest admiration and re- 
 spect" for Him, or any respect for Him? It must be 
 apparent to all that Mr. Ingersoll's reckless statements 
 are continually involving him in these absurdities, and 
 reveal the fact that he is not inclined to be fair and honest 
 in his treatment of Christianity. 
 
 On page 123, North American Review, Mr. Ingersoll 
 makes a very triumphant statement to the effect that had 
 Christ been God He would have foreseen all the perse- 
 cutions, crimes, horrors, infamies, and cruelties of the 
 Dark Ages, and would have prohibited them. Now all 
 this is puerile twaddle ! It is not respectable nonsense ! 
 The idea that God can create a free agent and then control 
 his wishes and acts is simply preposterous silliness. Why 
 does not God, who foreknew all possible sequences and 
 contingencies, prevent them? Why does He not compel 
 Mr. Ingersoll to tell the truth, or if he is ignorant of the 
 truths of history, sacred and profane, why does He not 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 229 
 
 force him to search and find the real truths and facts, and 
 compel him to honestly state them when he attacks the 
 Christian religion ? The answer is simple. He made Mr. 
 Ingersoll a free agent, and he is free to choose ''darkness 
 rather than light," and error than truth, and to pervert 
 too what he knows is truth. Neither his atheism nor the 
 God of the Bible will or can prevent him. It is easy to 
 conceive how God at the first might have created man a 
 machine, and of course without accountability; but it was 
 clearly impossible to create a being with intelligent free 
 will, and yet he be unaccountable. But this is precisely the 
 kind of a moral world modern atheism claims ours to be, 
 where moral accountability is a myth, and all the distinc- 
 tions of right and wrong, of virtue and vice, are mere 
 illusions of a religious fancy, the false creations of relig- 
 ious fanaticism. Now if there is no personal God in the 
 universe, as Mr. Ingersoll assumes very frankly in both 
 of his articles in the North American Review, then all the 
 horrid crimes and persecutions he attributes to the Jews 
 and their Jehovah and to the teachings of Christ are not 
 worth the paper they are written on, since there is no 
 moral accountability without a Being to whom we are 
 accountable; and if there were on his hypothesis, they 
 could not help doing as they did, because God knew they 
 would do so; and they did so because He knew they 
 would; and therefore they were the victims of an inexor- 
 able fate and consequently not blameworthy. If this doc- 
 trine of atheistic fatalism be true, then polygamy, slavery, 
 and the cruelties of the Jews towards their captives of 
 war, which Mr. Ingersoll seems never to tire speaking 
 of, may be among the best things that human beings have 
 ever done, atheism being true and the Bible false; and 
 then Mr. Ingersoll's florid rhetoric in these two articles 
 prove vastly too much for his own cause. But those who 
 accept the Bible as a Divine revelation can easily reconcile 
 the statement of these facts in the Sacred Record when 
 they remember that this book professes to be a true his- 
 tory of the nations referred to without commenting on the 
 right and wrong of everything it relates. 
 
230 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 The above views of Mr. Ingersoll touching the Divine 
 foreknowledge of God on the acts of men will prepare 
 you to appreciate a little of his metaphysics and moral 
 philosophy. He evidently is not as much at home in this 
 field as he is in rhetoric. To say the least, these views 
 are novel and probably original. He asks : "What is right, 
 and what is wrong? Everything is right that tends to the 
 happiness of mankind, and everything is wrong that in- 
 creases human misery." Again: "What is conscience?" 
 Here is his definition: "If a man were incapable of suffer- 
 ing, if a man could not feel pain, the word 'conscience' 
 never would have passed his lips." "Consequences deter- 
 mine the quality of an action. ... If consequences 
 are good, so is the action. If actions had no consequences, 
 they would be neither good nor bad. Man did not get his 
 knowledge of the consequences of actions from God, but 
 from experience and reason. If man can by actual experi- 
 ment discover the right and wrong of actions, is it not 
 utterly illogical to declare that they who do not believe 
 in God can have no standard of right and wrong?" 
 
 Suppose we test Mr. Ingersoll's standard of right and 
 wrong. He says "everything that tends to the happiness 
 of mankind is right." If he means everything that gives a 
 man pleasurable or happy feelings we should dissent. L,ust 
 indulged gives pleasurable feelings, but no man morally 
 sane believes it is right. Ardent spirits yield pleasurable 
 feelings, but it is not therefore right to drink to excess. 
 Or take the other statement: "Everything is wrong that 
 increaseth the sum of human misery." Not necessarily. 
 Human misery or suffering may result from a man's doing 
 right. The most cruel persecutions and the most terrible 
 suffering have often arisen from the loftiest moral heroism. 
 It is very evident Mr. Ingersoll's definition of right and 
 wrong is extremely defective, and overthrows his own 
 position. 
 
 Take the other loose remark, that "consequences deter- 
 mine the quality of an action." Suppose you deliberately 
 intend murder in heart and act ; but the pistol accidentally 
 kills its owner. Does the "consequence" in this case "de- 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 231 
 
 termine the quality of the action?" Or suppose you aim 
 to defend a friend who is attacked by a deadly foe, and kill 
 the friend instead of the enemy. Does "the consequence 
 determine the quality of the action?" The old philosophy 
 that the motive determines the quality of an action will 
 tally better with the standard of right and wrong than the 
 above new theory. Is it no more than probable that Mr. 
 Ingersoll is again mistaken, either from the want of re- 
 flection, or honesty, or both? A man who starts out in 
 this world without an intelligent God, who believes that it 
 is more probable that "matter is self-existent and eternal" 
 than that mind is, can hardly be expected to have correct 
 notions of right and wrong, and especially of the true 
 standard. It will not after this surprise the thinking por- 
 tion of mankind to hear Mr. Ingersoll's definition of con- 
 science : "If a man were incapable of suffering, if a man 
 could not feel pain, the word 'conscience' never would 
 have passed his lips." According to this lucid definition, 
 "Balaam's ass" had as much conscience as Mr. Ingersoll, 
 and was equally accountable. 
 
 He says we may get some "knowledge of right and 
 wrong from experience and reason." True. The Bible 
 admits this; but does this fact make it unimportant to 
 have a perfect standard of right and wrong when there 
 is so great liability to set up very different standards, and 
 men have such conflicting notions of right and wrong? 
 The presumption is, there should be some universal and 
 correct standard, and this the Bible professes to give; 
 namely, "the will of God." If it be true, that men simply 
 governed by "experience and reason" hold very conflict- 
 ing notions of right and wrong, then it is not utterly illog- 
 ical to declare that they who do not believe in God can 
 have no (correct) standard of right and wrong." 
 
 Ingersoll and Agnosticism. 
 
 In the April number of the North American Review, 
 1889, appeared an article from Colonel Ingersoll. After 
 a careful reading I felt it ought to be answered. I wrote 
 to Mr. Thorndike Rice, the editor, asking him if he would 
 
232 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 publish a respectful reply in case the article came up to 
 their standard for merit. 
 
 This paper was in the hands of Mr. Thorndike Rice 
 at the time of his death. There was some delay before 
 an editor took his place, and in this time the reply seemed 
 too late. It was sent to Mr. Ingersoll. He read it, and 
 admitted that I had treated him fairly and gentlemanly, 
 and in a letter to me said he did not want me to infer that 
 all he had written was for "buncomb." What was bun- 
 comb and what not all will have to judge for themselves 
 who have read his articles. 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll in this article on "Huxley and Agnosti- 
 cism" has given us a very racy paper in his inimitable 
 style. No man can equal him in his peculiar vein. It is 
 very difficult to meet him because of his method of attack 
 and bewitching rhetoric. So far as I have read him, and 
 that has been quite largely, no man has been able to cope 
 with him in his style and method of attack, unless it was 
 Father Lambert, the Catholic priest. He is his equal, if 
 not more than a match for him. His arguments are not 
 hard to meet, but his methods are such that few men can 
 condescend to come down to his plane. Two things make 
 him especially strong — his power of ridicule and sarcasm, 
 and his transcendent rhetoric. These capture the average 
 reader, and make him forget that there is a deep-hidden 
 poverty of truth and reason in anything he says or writes. 
 His statements are bold and often exceedingly reckless, 
 and to the casual reader have an air of candor and plausi- 
 bility, but will not bear close and searching examination. 
 
 Ingersoll adopts the Socratic method. He has shown 
 great tact in this, for he is aware that it is much easier 
 to ask questions than to answer them. It is a fallacious 
 kind of reasoning — not necessarily fallacious, but is ca- 
 pable of being so used, and he has done his mightiest in 
 this instance. He has been not a little adroit in making 
 a quotation from a certain English gentleman — principal 
 of King's College — as his text, in which there is probably 
 a little looseness of statement by this gentleman, but it is 
 mainly correct in fact. 
 
THB MISTAKES OF INGBRSOLL. 233 
 
 I now propose to analyze the strong points of this re- 
 markable deliverance of this great apostle of modern In- 
 fidelity, and lay bare what seems to me its unsoundness 
 and fallaciousness. I crave a careful and candid reading 
 of this my attempted exposure of a most captivating paper 
 by the Colonel. I do ask the reader to give Mr. Inger- 
 soll's article as fair a reading as mine at the same time. 
 Fair play is all that Christianity asks in its discussions 
 with Infidelity, whether in the form of Agnosticism or 
 Atheism. 
 
 His first question is, "Is there any other knowledge 
 than scientific knowledge ?" There undoubtedly is. There 
 is more than one way of knowing a thing or gaining 
 knowledge. It is true that scientific knowledge is an im- 
 portant kind of knowledge; but it is equally true that 
 there are other kinds of knowledge just as real and proper, 
 and as important too, as scientific truth; namely, the 
 knowledge we gain from the testimony of others. The 
 actual or practical scientists are a feeble minority in our 
 world. Therefore we are compelled to take what they say 
 on trust, or faith, if you please. You may not be compe- 
 tent to make the experiments yourself, and not be so situ- 
 ated that you can if you were competent to make them. 
 Most men accept their testimony without questioning 
 often. The great mass of men are compelled to do so, 
 or remain in ignorance of many valuable facts. 
 
 "Is there such a thing as scientific ignorance?" Yes, 
 an immense amount of it. No less a scientist than the 
 world-renowned Edison said this about much that is called 
 exact science : "The text-books are mostly misleading. I 
 get mad with myself when I think I have believed what 
 was so learnedly set out in them. There are more frauds 
 in science than anywhere else. Take a whole pile of them 
 that I can name, and you will find uncertainty if not im- 
 position in half of what they state as scientific truth. They 
 have time and again set down experiments as done by 
 them, curious out-of-the-way experiments that they 
 never did and upon which they have founded so-called 
 scientific truths. You see a great name and you believe 
 
234 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 in it. Try the experiment yourself, and you find the result 
 altogether different." I only make this quotation to show 
 the Colonel that what he calls scientific truth is as unre- 
 liable as any other testimony. 
 
 He says, "When asked to give your opinion on any sub- 
 ject, can it be said that ignorance of that subject is irrele- 
 vant?" Yes. What propriety or sense is there in a man 
 giving an opinion on a subject he confesses he knows 
 nothing about ? 
 
 Again, "How can a man obtain any knowledge of an 
 unseen world?" How can you obtain any knowledge of 
 Africa? Ask Livingstone and Stanley. But how do you 
 know that they ever saw Africa? Only from their testi- 
 mony. Is that knowledge? Yes, a very important kind 
 of knowledge. Christ says He came from heaven. Paul 
 says he was caught up into Paradise. These are the 
 highest order of testimony. 
 
 But Colonel Ingersoll says, "Nobody has come back 
 from the unseen world." How does he know that ? Those 
 have lived who said they did, and they were as honest 
 and competent to testify as Livingstone and Stanley. If 
 these men could give information concerning Africa, our 
 Father in Heaven could give us the needed information 
 about heaven. 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll candidly admits "that all this does not 
 prove the non-existence of another world — all this does 
 not demonstrate that death ends all, but it is the justifi- 
 cation of the Agnostic who candidly says, I do not know." 
 That is a flimsy and puerile justification founded on the 
 denial of human testimony. If you only mean that you 
 never saw the unseen world yourself when you say, "I do 
 not know," then your justification so far may be admirable, 
 but no farther. 
 
 You. say, "The principal of King's College states that 
 the difference between an Agnostic and a Christian lies 
 not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, 
 but that he does not believe the authority on which these 
 are stated." The principal of King's College is doubtless 
 correct. The simple difference between the Agnostic and 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 235 
 
 the Christian, as we have shown, is that human testi- 
 monies are a substantial and valid ground of belief with 
 the Christian, but with the Agnostic it is not. All along 
 through your article you ignore human testimony as a 
 sufficient ground of belief in miracles and an unseen world. 
 I do not misrepresent you, as the reader of your paper will 
 see. The real difference, then, between the Agnostic and 
 the Christian is this, one does not accept human testimony 
 as a ground of belief, and the other does. Now, then, what 
 are the facts about the place and importance of human 
 testimony as a ground of knowledge? Why this. By far 
 the greater part of any man's knowledge is the result of 
 faith in human testimony. The Agnostic has in all vital 
 particulars the same kind of testimony for miracles and 
 in an unseen world that he has — unless he has been there — 
 for the existence of Africa and Greenland. 
 
 You ask, "By what testimony can we substantiate the 
 prophecies?" By their exact fulfillment, and we know 
 they were uttered hundreds and thousands of years before 
 their fulfillment. This is their verification. A prophecy 
 is a miracle of knowledge. No finite being can say what 
 will come to pass in a hundred or a thousand years hence. 
 This power is supernatural. These inimitable prophecies 
 of the Old Testament are infallible proofs of the divinity 
 of the Bible. 
 
 You ask, "Has there not been a mistake?" If so, 
 show it. Do not assert it, unless you are positively certain 
 of it. A graceless insinuation may have all the force of a 
 deliberate falsehood. 
 
 You say, "Certainly the Creator of man — if such ex- 
 ists — knows the evidence necessary to convince. "Of 
 course He does, and has supplied ample and cogent evi- 
 dence sufficient to convince all reasonable men; but no 
 amount of evidence, however rational and positive, will 
 satisfy those "who love darkness rather than light." The 
 reader will observe that there are grave doubts in Mr. 
 Ingersoll's mind whether there is a "Creator of man;" 
 he says, "if such exist." It is well to keep this in mind 
 in analyzing his arguments. 
 
236 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll retorts on the principal of King's College 
 for saying, "The word infidel perhaps carries with it an 
 unpleasant significance, after this manner. A few years 
 ago its significance was so unpleasant that the man to 
 whom the word was applied found himself in prison or at 
 the stake. In particularly kind communities he was put 
 in the stocks, pelted with offal, derided by hypocrites, 
 scorned by ignorance, jeered by cowardice, and all the 
 priests passed by on the other side." Does Mr. Ingersoll 
 pretend in candor that history bears out this broad state- 
 ment without any qualification ? He here asserts this with 
 the positiveness that any one would be warranted in doing, 
 if it were notoriously true. The only trouble with it as 
 an argument, is that it is notoriously false to true history. 
 Please name some of the infidels of the world who were 
 thus sorely persecuted by imprisonment, by the stake, 
 were "pelted with offal," and all that, and the branch of 
 the Church that did it. Was it Celsus, or Julian the Apos- 
 tate, or Voltaire, or Rousseau, or Bolingbroke, or Hume, 
 or Gibbon, or Strauss, or Robert G. Ingersoll ? Mr. Inger- 
 soll knows, or ought to know, that his broad assertion has 
 no application to any to whom the name Infidel properly 
 belongs. There may be one or two exceptions. He further 
 says, "It is natural for the Church to hate unbelievers — 
 natural for the pulpit to despise one who refuses to sub- 
 scribe, who refuses to give. It is a question of revenue 
 instead of religion. It uses its power, its influence to com- 
 pel contribution. It forgives the giver." 
 
 Is it possible that Mr. Ingersoll believes this is the 
 honest truth concerning the Christian Church and pulpit? 
 Would not Christian charity lead us to suppose that he 
 wrote this in the heat of passion, and not in calm con- 
 viction? Was he not tempted to indulge his morbid sar- 
 casm just here, rather than calm reason? Suppose we 
 should retort by saying: "It is natural for Infidelity to 
 hate the Church, it is natural for the Infidel lecturer to 
 despise one who refuses to attend his lectures or read his 
 tracts. It is a question of revenue, rather than Infidelity." 
 Would he and the friends of Agnosticism consider this a 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 237 
 
 legitimate argument against Infidelity? Would they not 
 rather suspect that it was a little sarcasm and gall on the 
 part of Christianity? It is certainly as guiltless of argu- 
 ment as it is of truth. Immediately after this ungracious 
 and unmanly fling at the Christian Church and pulpit he 
 uses this significant language: "If a community is thor- 
 oughly civilized, why should it be an unpleasant thing 
 for a man to express his belief in respectful language?" 
 ( ! !) How is that for a gentleman that poses as a civil- 
 ized Agnostic ? I am perfectly certain that the Christian 
 religion demands both freedom of speech and of opinion, 
 but it must be respectful speech. Certainly the principal 
 of King's College did not use disrespectful language in the 
 quotation that forms the text of Mr. Ingersoll's entire 
 article. 
 
 I recollect distinctly in a former article from Mr. 
 Ingersoll in the North American Review this significant 
 statement, "That arguments can not be answered by per- 
 sonal abuse; that there is no logic in slander, and that 
 falsehood in the long run defeats itself." All this is very 
 true; but no man that I ever have read needs to be re- 
 minded of this so much as Mr. Ingersoll himself. This 
 is what he is constantly guilty of, slander, vituperation, 
 blasphemy, and bold assertions are the staple of most that 
 he writes and lectures against the Christian religion. Lest 
 I should appear to be dealing in assertions, permit me to 
 quote a few passages — I could quote enough of the same 
 sort from his numerous lectures and magazine articles to 
 make quite a book, to settle the fact that he most flagrantly 
 violates his observation that "arguments can not be an- 
 swered by personal abuse," etc. In his "Mistakes of 
 Moses" we have this sweet morsel : "They have in Massa- 
 chusetts, at a place called Andover, a kind of minister fac- 
 tory, where each professor takes an oath once in five years 
 — that time being considered the life of an oath — that he 
 has not during the last five years and will not during the 
 next five years intellectually advance. There is probably 
 no oath they could easier keep." 
 
 "I have not singled out Andover factory because it is 
 
238 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 worse than others. They are all about the same. The 
 professors for the most part are ministers who failed in 
 the pulpit, and were retired to the seminary on account 
 of their deficiency in reason and their excess of faith. 
 . . . They are for the most part engaged in poisoning 
 the minds of the young, prejudicing the children against 
 science, teaching the astronomy and geology of the Bible, 
 and inducing all to desert the sublime standard of reason. 
 These orthodox ministers do not add to the sum of knowl- 
 edge. They produce nothing. They live upon alms. They 
 hate laughter and joy. They officiate at weddings, sprinkle 
 water on babes, and utter meaningless words and barren 
 promises above the dead." 
 
 "Like all hypocrites these men overstate the case to 
 such a degree, and so turn and pervert facts and words, 
 that they succeed only in gaining the applause of other 
 hypocrites like themselves." 
 
 "The real oppressor, enslaver, corrupter of the people 
 is the Bible. That Book is the chain that binds, the dun- 
 geon that holds the clergy. That book spreads the pall of 
 superstition over the colleges and schools. That Book puts 
 out the eyes of science and makes honest investigation a 
 crime." 
 
 Need I sicken the reader by giving any more cases of 
 slander and vituperation. These are less blasphemous 
 than many others I might adduce. All this sounds like 
 the ravings of a crank, and is a remarkable example of his 
 own remark, "that falsehood in the long run defeats itself." 
 He continues his question box: "Does any theologian 
 hate the man he can answer?" A sufficient answer to this 
 profound inquiry would be, Does any Infidel hate the the- 
 ologian he can answer? That is about all the force there 
 is in the question. 
 
 Again : "It is further claimed that the New Testament 
 is an inspired account of what Christ and His disciples 
 did and said. Is there any obligation resting on any hu- 
 man being to believe this account? Is it within the power 
 of a man to determine the influence that testimony shall 
 have on his mind ?" 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 239 
 
 Certainly there is a most weighty obligation on every 
 man to believe this account if it is true. Every man is as 
 much under obligation to believe the Gospel record if it is 
 true, as every true American is to believe in the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, and more so. We have as good evi- 
 dence that the writers of the Gospels were good and truth- 
 ful men, as we have that the framers and signers of that 
 instrument were good and loyal Americans. We have 
 as much and more reason to suppose that the framers and 
 signers of that immortal document were prejudiced and 
 mistaken. Let any man in this country assume that our 
 forefathers were prejudiced and superstitious, and that 
 they exaggerated the treatment they received from the 
 mother country, would such an assumption weaken your 
 faith in the spirit and facts therein related, or lessen your 
 obligation as an American citizen to sacredly and loyally 
 accept its principles and teachings? I trow not, unless 
 you are a tory or a monarchist. 
 
 But the other question, "Is it within the power of man 
 to determine the influence that testimony shall have on his 
 mind?" It undoubtedly is in our power to determine what 
 influence certain kinds of testimony ought to have on our 
 minds ; but it sometimes happens that there are a few men 
 in the world who are in such a moral state that no kind 
 or degree of testimony would influence them against their 
 wishes. I fear this may be so with Mr. Ingersoll. 
 
 This would seem to be the proper place to note a most 
 singular position Mr. Ingersoll takes regarding human 
 testimony. "How is it possible to know whether the re- 
 puted authors of the Old Testament were the real ones? 
 The witnesses are dead. The lips that could testify are 
 dust. Between these shores roll the waves of many cen- 
 turies. Who knows whether such a man as Moses existed 
 or not? . . . For this we have only their word, and 
 about that there is this difficulty: we know nothing of 
 them, and consequently can not, if we desire, rely upon 
 their character for truth. This evidence is simply hear- 
 say — it is weaker than that. We have only been told that 
 they said these things; we do not know whether the 
 
240 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 persons claiming to be inspired wrote these things or 
 not; neither are we certain that such persons ever 
 existed." 
 
 Now if we apply this novel logic to Mr. Ingersoll, he 
 would find that about three-fourths of all he knows or 
 thinks he knows and believes is based on what others 
 have said and done before he was born. It is impossible 
 to verify what Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon Bonaparte 
 said and did only by what the historians tell us. Yet we 
 believe they lived and did what is attributed to them. I 
 suppose it is safe to infer that one-fourth of what the 
 Colonel knows would be a large proportion of what he 
 really knows by positive and scientific induction or per- 
 sonal demonstration. How much time has he given to the 
 study of geology and botany in the practical field? How 
 much to zoology ? How much to navigation ? How much 
 to natural history? How much to practical astronomy? 
 How much to geography? What countries has he ex- 
 plored? How much to statesmanship? How much to 
 theology? About three- fourths or more of all he knows 
 he has gotten as he styles it from hearsay or human testi- 
 mony. He has gotten most that he knows from authors 
 w T ho have long been dead, and their contemporaries are 
 dead. How does he know that they ever said what is 
 attributed to them, or that such men ever existed? If you 
 subtract three-fourths then of all he knows by personal 
 and actual experiments and demonstration, he will be 
 seventy-five-hundredths more of an Agnostic than he now 
 is. Vastly most of his and every man's knowledge is de- 
 rived from what others have said and done. You see what 
 an immense amount of credulity or testimony a professed 
 Agnostic can and does swallow without knowing it. This 
 ought to convince Mr. Ingersoll and all professed skeptics 
 of the true place and value of human testimony. It is 
 surprising that a man of his opportunities and general 
 intelligence should allow himself to make such sweeping 
 and loose assertions contradictory of the millions of facts 
 that have been settled for centuries, and it is equally sur- 
 prising that so many are ready to gulp them down without 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 241 
 
 ever stopping to sift them or consider whence they lead, 
 or to what absurdities ! 
 
 Now, Colonel, follow your humble servant for a mo- 
 ment, and see where your philosophy will land you. In 
 about one century from this date, allowing you a green old 
 age, Robert G. Ingersoll will be dead and his contempo- 
 raries will be dead, and no man can certainly believe that 
 he ever lived or wrote "The Mistakes of Moses" or the 
 discussions in the North American Review — its editors 
 being dead, they can not be verified or demonstrably 
 proved ; consequently some future philosopher who learned 
 it from some source will ask, "How is it possible to know 
 whether the reputed author of the 'Mistakes of Moses* 
 and 'Huxley and Agnosticism' was the real writer? 
 The witnesses are dead. The lips that could testify are 
 dust. Who knows whether such a man as Colonel Inger- 
 soll ever existed or not? For this we have only their 
 word, and about that there is this difficulty: we know 
 nothing of them, and consequently can not, if we desire, 
 rely upon their character for truth. This evidence is 
 simply hearsay," etc. And further than this some future 
 doubter of a charitable and rational turn of mind and 
 peculiarly molded mentally, will say: "If R. G. Ingersoll 
 wrote the 'Mistakes of Moses' he never was guilty of such 
 ribaldry and coarse personalities as are found in that 
 pamphlet and his other writings. Some superstitious 
 enemy has tampered with them and inserted those hard 
 sayings to damage his philosophy. Of course some one 
 did it; but not such a high-minded man as he would make 
 such loose and sweeping assertions and coarse flings. The 
 future reader must use his reason and reject everything 
 that does not comport with reason you see. He must be 
 versed in the Higher Criticism of this cultured age — he 
 must. Yes, I forgot to mention that Shakespeare is dead 
 and no one lives who knew him — if such a man lived. 
 Probably the fellow who says Bacon wrote what most peo- 
 ple believe William Shakespeare wrote, is probably an 
 Agnostic who knows what he does not know. Yes, and 
 Napoleon is dead and all his generals and comrades are 
 16 
 
242 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 dead. Probably this will give you a hint why Archbishop 
 Whately wrote a book entitled "Historic Doubts of the 
 Existence of Napoleon Bonaparte." It might enlighten 
 the Colonel to read that book. It might confirm his 
 Agnosticism, or lead him to a more rational faith. One 
 more smart thing the Colonel says in this luminous article 
 is, that no man in this age ever witnessed a miracle, there- 
 fore no man in any other age ever did. This Mr. Hume 
 said before the Colonel was born the first time, and he will 
 have to "be born again" before he will see its transparent 
 fallacy. It was exploded long years ago by able logicians. 
 In plain, simple English it may be stated thus : What is 
 contrary to general experience is not to be believed. The 
 majority of mankind have never seen Greenland or Terra 
 Del Fuego; therefore there are no such countries. The 
 raising the dead is contrary to general experience; there- 
 fore such a thing never occurred. The king of Bantam 
 when told that water sometimes took on the solid form 
 said it was impossible, because the people of Bantam had 
 never seen such a thing. Mr. Ingersoll, there have thou- 
 sands of things occurred in this world that never will 
 occur again or be seen again; but it does not follow that 
 they are not facts because you have not seen them, or that 
 the great mass of mankind will never see them again. 
 But you say it is impossible. How do you know it is im- 
 possible? That is a violent assumption. All things are 
 possible with God, and God may have the best of moral 
 reasons for varying the course of natural law that do not 
 appear to a man agnostically molded, or, if you please, 
 inclined. We have as good testimony as the world could 
 produce for any matter of fact that God has so done in 
 different periods of human history; as good as we have 
 for the history and acts of Alexander or Julius Caesar. 
 
 It is difficult to classify the Colonel's rhetorical essay, 
 but we must not pass over or skip his strong points. Here 
 is one of them: "The civilized man rises far above the 
 bigotry of one who has been born again." The interpre- 
 tation of this magnanimous (?) sentence is this: The 
 Christian is uncivilized and the Infidel is civilized. Where 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 243 
 
 did the Infidel get his civilization from? We answer by 
 another. Where does the moon get her light? 
 
 Again he asks : "Can there be anything more consoling 
 than to feel and know that Jehovah is not God?" — that 
 the message of the Old Testament is not from the In- 
 finite ?" Can there be anything more gloomy than to think 
 Jehovah is not God? In other words, can there be any- 
 thing more gloomy than Agnosticism which tells us 
 the future is unknown — no intimation of what that future 
 is to be or what is in store for us, or whether there be 
 any future? Is there any consolation in darkness and 
 doubt? If there is such a thing as "taking a leap in the 
 dark," is not that thing fitly symbolized by Agnosticism? 
 If an Agnostic really knows nothing about a future and 
 unknown world, and has serious doubts whether there is 
 an unknown world, why in reason and consistency does 
 he not cease philosophizing and talking about it so much? 
 It is neither common sense nor modesty to be constantly 
 obtruding their opinions about things they confess they 
 know nothing about. But men who have faith in a God of 
 truth, righteousness, and love and a great future, may be 
 permitted to express their views about them. But pre- 
 sumptively if there is a future world, and there is an in- 
 finitely wise and good Father, it would be like Him to give 
 His inquiring children some information on such an im- 
 portant and universal desire to know something about that 
 future and our dear departed. Antecedently there is a 
 very strong and reasonable presumption in favor of this 
 view. But Agnosticism assumes that if there is a God 
 and a future world, He would not be likely to give us any 
 such information concerning it. He would not conde- 
 scend to give even one little ray of light or hope to cheer 
 earth's sorrowing ones. The Agnostic must admit there is 
 much trouble and suffering in this world, much that is 
 inscrutable unless there is a glorious future. Will not the 
 Universal Father be kind enough to give us a little glance 
 into the great dark unknown? The Agnostic says He 
 has not. There is no hope that He will ! Mr. Ingersoll 
 says emphatically: "No person has come back from the 
 
244 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 unseen. No authentic message has been delivered. 
 Through all the centuries not one whisper has broken the 
 silence that lies beyond the grave. Countless millions have 
 sought for some evidence, have listened in vain for some 
 word." That is a blasphemous libel on the character of 
 Jehovah ! Even on the Jehovah of the Old Testament, 
 for He has been infinitely more benevolent to His erring 
 children than Mr. Ingersoll's God. It is a blasphemous 
 libel on the universal and innocent wish of the race. They 
 rationally expected it, and our God has not disappointed 
 them. He has not raised expectations to thus blast them. 
 He does not thus tantalize His children. Away with such 
 a stoical, Tartarean philosophy ! 
 
 Now, then, in the light of what Mr. Ingersoll says 
 above, I can not see for my life what business he has offi- 
 ciating at funerals, as he is frequently doing, if there is 
 no future, or if it is a dark unknown, if "through all the 
 centuries not one whisper has broken the silence that lies 
 beyond the grave." The very fact that he does thus 
 officiate on these most sacred and solemn occasions, is a 
 significant evidence that universal man craves some in- 
 formation about the future, or if he does it to cast ridicule 
 on the universal Christian practice, then it is an open 
 insult to humanity's most sacred emotions and tenderest 
 relationships. But I can not believe this latter. In the 
 light, however, of his clearly-stated views his officiating 
 and offering consolation to the survivors is like pumping 
 light out of gross darkness, is a most unseemly thing, an 
 absurd farce, a ludicrous blasphemy ! 
 
 Now, then, to return to the real issue under consider- 
 ation, if such a revelation meeting the universal wish of 
 the race were given by our Father, where in the history 
 of the nations of the world will you find a revelation so 
 full and complete as in the Christian Scriptures? When 
 Mr. Ingersoll or any Infidel philosophers shall produce 
 a fuller and more consoling revelation, I doubt not but 
 the Christian world will be only too glad to accept it and 
 lay aside the Bible; but they beg the skeptical world not 
 to ask them to give up this till they produce a better. 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 245 
 
 Hear him again: "Is it not possible to imagine that a 
 great and tender soul living in Palestine nearly twenty- 
 centuries ago was misunderstood?" Yes. I remember 
 distinctly that the Gospels most emphatically again and 
 again assert that nearly the whole Jewish nation and their 
 most learned men misunderstood the prophecies made re- 
 garding His Divinty and mission among men. They sup- 
 posed that He was only a temporal prince and a mere 
 man, and it took Him most of His remarkable career to 
 correct this misunderstanding. And He was compelled to 
 work many and astonishing miracles to convince them of 
 their mistake regarding Him. There are many to-day 
 who are laboring under the same serious mistake. 
 
 But the things Mr. Ingersoll "imagines" the writers 
 of the Gospels and the disciples might have been mistaken 
 about, is a most improbable conjecture; viz., that they saw 
 Christ heal the sick, the lame, the blind, the deaf, and raise 
 the dead, when He never did any such thing nor attempted 
 it. These are the very things that men, common every- 
 day men, are most competent to testify to — what they saw 
 and heard. If there is any testimony in our courts of 
 justice the court relies on, it is the testimony of eye and 
 ear witnesses. I say it is the most improbable thing in 
 the world, that these eye and ear witnesses could be mis- 
 taken about these facts. If they were dishonest men, they 
 might have lied about these things ; but if they were truth- 
 ful men there is no ground for deception unless Christ was 
 a juggler. I do not know that any skeptic of this age 
 since Strauss will risk his reputation by saying that 
 the disciples were dishonest, or that Christ was a juggler. 
 One or the other of these last suppositions must be true ; 
 If Christ was no juggler and the disciples were honest 
 men, then they could not be mistaken about these facts. 
 The Jews, who were the best prepared to deny these re- 
 ports and expose these cheats if they were cheats, ad- 
 mitted the facts and charged Christ with "being in league 
 with the devils," and "casting out devils through Beelze- 
 bub, the prince of the devils." It has been left for men 
 nineteen centuries removed from the events to deny them 
 
246 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 and question them. This is a strange exhibition of cre- 
 dulity. 
 
 But Mr. Ingersoll makes the broad assertion that "the 
 miracles of the Middle Ages rest upon substantially the 
 same evidence" as those recorded in the Gospels. It is 
 almost unaccountable that a man in his conspicuous po- 
 sition should make so reckless a statement in the blaze of 
 sacred and profane history. Does he mean to say that 
 the supposed miracles of the Middle Ages were of the 
 same character and performed before multitudes of friends 
 and enemies in open day under the gaze of keen-sighted 
 enemies who were waiting to expose the pretensions of 
 the miracle workers ? There is a vast remove between the 
 miracles of Gospel times and the Middle Ages as wide as 
 between heaven and earth. There is no vital point of com- 
 parison. Mr. Ingersoll in this loose statement either pre- 
 sumes on the ignorance of his readers, or takes for granted 
 that they will rather accept his statement, than put them- 
 selves to the trouble to verify it. Many of his readers 
 know his statement is not true, and others will find it out 
 in the course of their future reading. There is the true 
 and false in the world, the genuine and spurious. There 
 are spurious miracles and there are genuine, and we have 
 the criteria to determine their character. There is an im- 
 mense distance between the jugglery of the magician and 
 the miracles of Jesus. In speaking of the miracles attrib- 
 uted to Christ, Mr. Ingersoll says, "The world has been 
 governed by jugglery and by slight of hand." This is 
 another sweeping statement. There is some jugglery and 
 some slight of hand in the world, but it has had but a 
 small place in the government of this world. This is a 
 marvelous statement; marvelous for its recklessness! mar- 
 velous for its audacity ! and marvelous for its falsity ! but 
 it evidently was made to throw discredit on the splendid 
 and benevolent works of Christ. He avers in this paper 
 that he is anxious "to rescue the reputation of a great and 
 splendid man" from the contempt these professed miracles 
 have entailed upon Him. Is this the benevolent under- 
 taking that Mr. Ingersoll has been so industriously en- 
 
THE MISTAKES OF 1NGERS0LL. 247 
 
 gaged in in his lectures on "The Mistakes of Moses" 
 and his labored articles in the North American Review? 
 How greatly then he has been misunderstood ! You would 
 imagine from some of the closing paragraphs of this re- 
 markable paper that the Nazarene had had no such friend 
 and admirer since the days of the apostles. Hear him: 
 "If the reputation of 'our Lord' is to be preserved — if He 
 is to stand with the great and splendid of earth — all claim 
 to the miraculous, to the supernatural, must be aban- 
 doned." But presently he awakens your suspicions by 
 saying, "If the man Christ lived." You observe that his 
 agnosticism bobs up and beclouds matters about the re- 
 ality — of Christ's existence. But I will have occasion to 
 notice this point in a moment or two more fully. Mr. 
 Ingersoll attempts to classify Christ with Humboldt and 
 Darwin, but most Christians are not at all satisfied with 
 that classification. They believe that the Apostle Paul 
 did not exaggerate the case when he drew this portraiture : 
 "Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery 
 to be equal with God ; but made Himself of no reputation, 
 and took on Him the form of a servant, and was made 
 in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a 
 man He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death. 
 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given 
 Him a name which is above every name, that at the name 
 of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and 
 things in earth and things under the earth ; and that every 
 tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the 
 glory of God the Father." Jesus is incomparable ! He is 
 unique ! He has no peer among men or angels. You, Mr. 
 Ingersoll, and all Agnostics will some day bow the knee 
 to Jesus and confess that "He is Lord to the glory of God 
 the Father." It may be unwillingly, but you will do it. 
 We hope it will be willingly and from conviction produced 
 by further light. This is not said in braggadocio or ban- 
 teringly, but in candid faith. The world is coming to it. 
 This brings me to the point above mentioned, as to whether 
 Christ really did live. I quote his words : 
 
 "If the man Christ lived, taught, and suffered, if He 
 
248 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 was in reality great and noble, who is His friend — the one 
 who attributes to Him feats of jugglery, or he who main- 
 tains that these stories were invented by zealous ignorance 
 and believed by enthusiastic credulity?" Who attributes 
 to Christ "feats of jugglery?" I do not know any people 
 who do; but Mr. Ingersoll and his worst enemies, the 
 Jews, had not brass or facts enough to convict Him of it. 
 They admitted the facts and charged Him with being in 
 league with the Evil One. But he says, "If the man Christ 
 lived, taught, and suffered." Now, it is important for us 
 to know if Christ really lived, taught, and suffered as re- 
 corded in the Gospels. It is important to this argument 
 to know whether Mr. Ingersoll really believes that He 
 lived, taught, and suffered in Palestine. If He did not 
 live, teach, and suffer, then there is no need of the 
 Colonel's pious effort "to rescue the reputation of the 
 Christ man from zealous ignorance and enthusiastic cre- 
 dulity," if the Christ of the Gospels is a myth I can not 
 see how an honest Agnostic, as Mr. Ingersoll now pro- 
 fesses himself to be, can know that such a man as Christ 
 ever lived, taught, and suffered, who has no faith in the 
 Authorship of the Gospels. He says: "What is the au- 
 thority of the Christian? Thousands of years ago it is 
 supposed that certain men, or rather uncertain men, wrote 
 certain things; neither are we certain that such men ever 
 existed." If Christ never wrote anything Himself, as is 
 generally admitted, then you will see, candid reader, the 
 dilemma Mr. Ingersoll puts himself in. If he believes 
 the man Christ did live and never wrote a word Himself, 
 that the Colonel is compelled to believe what His biog- 
 raphers have said about Him, and of course he must 
 believe these biographers were real persons. If they said 
 anything of Him that was true and praiseworthy, who 
 are to be the judges of what was true and what was false 
 that they recorded? Who are to sit in judgment on the 
 case? I believe the world — the candid world — will be 
 slow to commit this delicate task to such men as Mr. In- 
 gersoll and Mr. Huxley. But if as the Gospels assert that 
 He did heal the sick, cure the lame and blind, and raise 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 249 
 
 the dead, who is His friend — the one who charges Him 
 with jugglery, or the one who vindicated His Godhead? 
 the one who would stain His honestly gained reputation, 
 or the one who has the courage to claim Divine honors 
 for his Master? JVir. Ingersoll, please do not attempt at 
 this late day to revive the old Jewish notion that Christ 
 was only a man — only a very good man, if you prefer that ! 
 Nobody doubts He was good who believes that He was a 
 real man. "Our Lord," as you have been pleased to call 
 Him, will excuse you from any farther trouble in that 
 direction. He prefers not to have His reputation rescued 
 in that way. Please do not tinker at it. 
 
 The next thrust the Colonel makes at Christianity is 
 about its belief or teachings concerning demonology and 
 devils. He says : "If the New Testament establishes any- 
 thing it is the existence of innumerable devils, and that 
 these Satanic beings absolutely took possession of the 
 human mind. Is this true? Can anything be more ab- 
 surd?" 
 
 Yes, the New Testament teaches the existence of devils 
 and that they take possession of men's minds. Christians 
 have no cause to shirk the issue or refine on it, so as to 
 accommodate the notions of scientific infidelity so called. 
 The Scriptures do not say whether these "Satanic beings" 
 take possession of men's minds without the consent of men 
 or not; but rather leave the impressions that they are in- 
 vited to do so. The Colonel and his school pooh-pooh 
 at this doctrine, and ask in intellectual surprise, "Is this 
 true ? Can anything be more absurd ?" We answer to the 
 first question, It is marvelously, painfully, and mortify- 
 ingly true. But we are a little curious to know what the 
 Colonel's idea of a devil is. The common opinion of the 
 word is, that a devil is some kind of an evil spirit or being 
 bent on mischief and wrong-doing; one that is opposed to 
 righteousness, one that loves and practices wrong, that 
 delights in sin that approves of theft, murder, licentious- 
 ness, obscenity, injustice, and all abominations. The Bible 
 seems to teach that they are fallen angels. Do Mr. Inger- 
 soll and his school deny the existence in our world of 
 
250 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 these evils and facts? Well, if they are present and are 
 confronting us every hour with fearful consequences to 
 humanity, will he please tell the world how they came 
 here in such fearful numbers and results? Are these facts 
 without a cause? Do they not imply intelligent and re- 
 sponsible agents? If he replies that no evil spirits exist 
 outside of man himself, as connected with evil acts, then 
 it follows that men are devils incarnate and in fearful 
 numbers. If such evil acts as mentioned make a devil 
 men are devils, or are possessed of some evil spirits that 
 lead them to these evil deeds. There must be some intelli- 
 gent, adequate cause to produce such results. It may not 
 be very complimentary to mankind to be called devils; 
 but if they commit acts suitable to these "Satanic beings" 
 they will have to accept the designation. The Colonel 
 and his friends must accept this latter view, or that of 
 the New Testament account of the introduction of moral 
 evil in our world. He can have his choice. "Can any- 
 thing be more absurd ?" We think there can be. This is 
 infinitely more absurd — for a man like Mr. Ingersoll to 
 live in this world and inferentially deny the existence 
 of moral evil, and that nobody produced it or is respon- 
 sible for it. We prefer the New Testament view greatly 
 to his absurd theory of moral evil. And we prefer greatly 
 the New Testament scheme for its cure to his philosophy. 
 One thing is very apparent and well established among 
 men — that they are greatly influenced for good or evil 
 by their companions and associates, especially if their 
 associates are smarter than they. It does not appear 
 absurd to a very large class of intelligent beings in the 
 universe, besides the inhabitants of our little world, and 
 if mind or spirit is superior to matter that they might be 
 able to communicate with each other, and yet have no 
 sympathy with the doctrine of modern spiritualism. Please 
 note how the Colonel dismisses this part of his clever 
 essay. "Of course it is the business of the principals of 
 colleges, as well as of bishops, cardinals, popes, priests, 
 and clergymen, to insist upon the existence of evil spirits. 
 All these gentlemen are employed to counteract the influ- 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 251 
 
 ence of these supposed demons. Why should they take the 
 bread out of their own mouths ? Is it to be expected that 
 they will unfrock themselves?" This is a small piece 
 of manly generosity and magnanimity (?) that ought to 
 forever immortalize Mr. Ingersoll as a fair-minded de- 
 bater. It certainly speaks eloquently for the cause (?) 
 of which he regards himself as the chief champion and 
 defender. I am, and I am not surprised at his methods. 
 One word in conclusion. He passes a high compliment 
 on Professor Huxley. He was a long time reaching the 
 distinguished Professor. The title of the paper would 
 have led the reader to infer that Mr. Huxley would have 
 figured more largely than he did, but the Colonel could 
 not forbear to miss the opportunity of spending most of 
 his time and space in the enjoyable work of belaboring 
 Christianity and the clergy. His principal reference to 
 the Professor was that his article in a certain magazine 
 was very fine, and he expressed a quiet regret that the 
 Professor and Frederick Harrison did not agree about 
 the positive philosophy of Augustus Comte. He did 
 mention, however, that agnostics "have ceased to inquire 
 into the origin of things." If so, it is within a few 
 months. I am sorry to have to contradict the Colonel 
 again before I close. Mr. Ingersoll must know, if he is 
 well read, that there is not a prominent agnostic or infidel 
 that is not trying to account for the origin of man and 
 living animals, either by "spontaneous generation" or 
 "natural selection." Professor Huxley has been at this 
 business for years, and is at it now if he is not dead and 
 he is an agnostic ; so are Professors Tyndall and Spencer, 
 and they are agnostics. Mr. Darwin was at it up to the 
 day of his death. I do not fault them for it; but I do not 
 want the Colonel to misrepresent them, especially Pro- 
 fessor Huxley, after slighting him so in this last article. 
 Some agnostics, who put on an air of modesty and say 
 when certain questions are at the front, "I do not know," 
 are the most dogmatic and positive about things that are 
 highly improbable, and then about other things that are 
 highly probable they modestly say, "I do not know." This 
 
252 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 is notably so with Professor Huxley, the most eminent of 
 living agnostics. He takes the ground that modern evo- 
 lution, as taught by Darwin and Ernst Hackel and 
 himself, is as demonstrably proved "as the Copernican 
 system of the universe," while most evolutionists, and 
 among them Charles Darwin, the father of the theory, 
 only claim a high degree of probability for it. Why do 
 not these agnostics act consistently, and say they do not 
 know the origin of man? Why does not Mr. Ingersoll 
 say, "I do not know whether the apostles wrote the gos- 
 pels or not. I do not know whether Christ performed the 
 miracles recorded or not." He is not satisfied with leaving 
 the matter on purely agnostic grounds, but says he knows 
 Christ never did cure the sick or blind or lame or raise 
 the dead. You see, candid reader, how positive he can 
 be about things that he never saw or did himself. He is 
 certain that no one ever saw or did things that he and his 
 agnostic brethren have not seen or done. Everything must 
 be verified before they will believe. If you ever visited 
 Africa or Iceland you must "verify" it, because most people 
 never saw these countries and never will. Livingstone is 
 dead, and what he recorded may be all a myth, because 
 "many men are mistaken." Stanley may never return to 
 verify his travels, and he could not verify them for any 
 one but himself anyway; so the Colonel and his school 
 will be compelled to verify it for themselves or accept 
 their testimony about the Dark Continent, and I suspect 
 they will conclude to accept what Stanley and Bishop 
 Taylor say about it, rather than go out as missionaries to 
 propagate agnosticism among the natives, lest they become 
 poisoned with the leaven of Christianity by Taylor and 
 others. 
 
 I can not close without a single reference to Mr. Inger- 
 soll's present attitude to Christianity as foreshadowed in 
 this late article in the North American Review. I think 
 it would be difficult, from most of his lectures and written 
 articles for a few years past, not to consider him an avowed 
 atheist; but in this late paper he gives evidence of a 
 marked change. From one or two paragraphs it is appa- 
 
THE MISTAKES OF INGERSOLL. 253 
 
 rent that in his religious evolution he is hard by the bor- 
 ders of modern Unitarianism. He is either nearing them, 
 or they are approaching agnosticism. Let me quote (from 
 page 410 of North American Review for April, 1889) : "If 
 one denies the existence of devils, does he for that reason 
 cease to believe in Jesus Christ? Is it not possible to 
 imagine that a great and tender soul living in Palestine 
 nearly twenty centuries ago was misunderstood? Is it 
 not within the realm of the possible that His words have 
 been inaccurately reported? Is it not within the range 
 of the probable that legend and rumor and ignorance and 
 zeal have deformed His life and belittled His character?" 
 Now this is orthodox Unitarianism of to-day. No man can 
 read their current theology now or hear their ministers 
 preach, without recognizing that the Colonel has either 
 been reading or sitting under their preaching of late. I 
 am glad of it. I think he gives signs of return from his 
 long wanderings. I shall not be greatly surprised to hear 
 of him filling some Unitarian pulpit soon, and not much 
 more surprised to hear of his becoming a liberal orthodox 
 preacher before he dies. The world moves ! There are 
 wonderful undercurrents of religious thought about Christ 
 and His place in creation and the redemption of this 
 world. 
 
 EVOLUTION. 
 
 I have been requested by a number of gentlemen of this city to give 
 a few lectures on Evolution, in view of the interest recently awakened 
 on this subject. I propose to discuss, in a general way, the much lauded 
 theory of Modern Evolution, and show its utter fallaciousness as taught 
 by its leading authors. Under the auspices of the Young Men's Chris- 
 tian Association. 
 
 I. 
 
 As THE subject is somewhat abstruse and burdened 
 with a peculiar nomenclature, I have concluded, for the 
 sake of as much brevity and clearness as possible, to com- 
 mit my lectures to paper, which I know will in some 
 measure lessen their interest. I also do so that I may 
 not be falsely reported. Your indulgence and candid hear- 
 ing are craved. As preliminary to this discussion it may 
 
2 5 4 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 be pertinent to call attention to the distinguished authors 
 who have originated the idea, and are advocating its claims 
 on the credulity of this age. Charles Darwin may right- 
 fully be regarded as the father of modern Evolution, so 
 evidently so is this that the theory has earned the name 
 of "The Darwinian Theory." He is the author of the 
 following works: "Origin of Species," "The Descent of 
 Man," "Animals and Plants," and some others of minor 
 importance. Another distinguished author on Evolution, 
 and the most eminent disciple of Darwin, is E. Hackel, 
 Professor of Natural History in the University of Jena. 
 He is the author of the following large works : "History 
 of Creation" and "The Evolution of Man;" and Professor 
 Huxley, the author of "Elementary Physiology" and sun- 
 dry lectures, all aiming to establish Evolution. These are 
 considered to be the ablest exponents of the system. I 
 shall therefore pay my principal respects to them. I desire 
 to say that these gentlemen have made many valuable 
 contributions to science, and the world is largely indebted 
 to them for their indefatigable labors; but that their 
 researches have established the Dogma of Evolution as 
 taught by them with such persistent zeal the majority of 
 intelligent and cultured men of this age do not at all be- 
 lieve, and some of these scientists teach that all the living 
 species of men and animals have come into being by spon- 
 taneous generation without the aid of creative power, pur- 
 pose, or plan. This is HackeFs theory, and favored by 
 Huxley. The other theory, differing from this, is that 
 the first being or few specimens of a very low order were 
 the result of creative power, as a starter of all living 
 beings, animals and men, and ever since that there has 
 been no supervising plan of a superior intelligence. The 
 work has all been accomplished by blind law, under the 
 law of "natural selection," or "The Survival of the Fit- 
 est." In a word, that the race of men have come down to 
 their present high estate through a long line of ancestors, 
 beginning with unorganized Protoplasm, or Bathybius, or 
 Bioplasm, or Moneron, running -through a long line of 
 ganoids, or fishes, tortoises, horses, dogs, monkeys, and 
 
EVOLUTION. 255 
 
 apes, our nearest living ancestor. This is Darwinianism. 
 You laugh, gentlemen, but this they proclaim with all 
 soberness, and I will not say insincerity. These same 
 great scientists do thus declare without a blush, so far as 
 their written works indicate. I think it was Cicero who 
 said: "He did not see how two jugglers could look each 
 other in the face without laughing !" 
 
 A few words about the terms employed in these books 
 and lectures. Protoplasm literally means first made; it is 
 a jelly-like substance supposed to contain life; Bioplasm 
 means first life, or the beginning of life, and is similar to 
 Protoplasm; Bathybius is a Greek word, meaning deep 
 sea. Mr. Huxley, the discoverer, says this about it: 
 "Bathybius is a vast sheet of living matter enveloping the 
 whole earth beneath the seas." In honor of Professor 
 Hackel he named it "Bathybius Hackelu." This deep sea 
 ooze he made the bridge between the organic and inorganic 
 world. The great infidel, Strauss, went into ecstasies over 
 this supposed discovery, and used it as his strongest argu- 
 ment against miracles or the supernatural. Of course 
 Professor Hackel applauded this discovery, because of the 
 vast issues that were dependent upon it. But the greatest 
 living physiologists like Dr. Carpenter and Lionel Beale 
 rejected Huxley's testimony as a matter of fact. Dr. 
 Wallich, 1869, presented evidence that this sea ooze, or 
 Bathybius, has nothing in it to confirm Huxley's assump- 
 tions, and recent deep sea soundings have given their ver- 
 dict against Mr. Huxley's pretensions; and finally, in the 
 American Journal of Science and Arts, you will find (Oct. 
 1877, pp. 267, 268) the last concession that this celebrated 
 Bathybius contains nothing but "the sulphate of lime !" 
 Poor Strauss did not live long enough to hear Professor 
 Huxley recant. His Bathybius has been the subject of 
 ridicule and jest among literary and scientific men for 
 several years last past. He has been very reticent in his 
 recent lectures on the subject of Bathybius and its sisters, 
 Protoplasm and Moneron, of other evolutionists. It has 
 been remarked in his New York lectures that he was 
 very shy about touching the main objection to evolution; 
 
256 STORY OF MY LIFB. 
 
 viz., bridging the immense chasm between living and not 
 living matter, his first bridge utterly broke down under 
 its own absurdity and want of scientific evidence. Spon- 
 taneous generation is in the same category of assumptions, 
 as we will see further on. 
 
 The word Moneron, employed so much by Professor 
 Hackel, is best explained by him. He says : "The monera 
 are the simplest of all known organisms, being mere lumps 
 of pure albumen, without organs or heterogeneous parts," 
 and probably not larger than a pin's head and living at 
 the bottom of the ocean, where Huxley discovered his 
 Bathybius. 
 
 To show you that I have not overstated nor misstated 
 the teachings of these gentlemen, I quote: Mr. Darwin 
 says (Origin of Species, pp. 420, 425, 428) : "There is a 
 grandeur in his view [evolution] of life, with its several 
 powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator 
 into a few forms or into one." "The similar framework 
 of bones in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of a 
 porpoise, and leg of a horse, . . . and innumerable 
 other such facts at once explain themselves on the theory 
 of descent with slow and successive modifications." "In 
 regard to the members of each great kingdom, such as 
 vertebrata, articulata, etc., we have distinct evidence . . . 
 that within each kingdom all the members are descended 
 from a single progenitor." "All the living forms of life 
 are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before 
 the Cambrian Epoch." 
 
 Professor Hackel (History of Creation, Vol. I, pp. 48, 
 75) says: "But a truly natural and consistent view of 
 organisms can assume no supernatural act of creation for 
 even those simplest original forms, but only a coming into 
 existence by spontaneous generation. From Darwin's 
 view of the nature of species we arrive therefore at the 
 natural theory of development." "The fundamental idea 
 which must necessarily lie at the bottom of all natural 
 theories of development is that of a gradual development 
 of all (even the most perfect) organisms out of a single 
 or out of a very few quite simple and quite imperfect 
 
BVOLUTION. 257 
 
 original beings which came into existence not by super- 
 natural creation, but by spontaneous generation or archi- 
 gony out of inorganic matter." 
 
 I now propose to examine these arguments and assump- 
 tions of the master spirits of modern Evolution, and show 
 that their theories are not supported by well demonstrated 
 facts. Their pretended facts are largely mere assump- 
 tions; in other words, "not proven." They assume that 
 all organisms of living animals and men came "from a 
 single or a few quite simple and imperfect beings." Now 
 in the very nature of the case, how can they so positively 
 assert this? This, according to their theory of the early 
 condition of the world and its slow development, must 
 have occurred one hundred million of years ago. Who 
 were there that are competent to testify? Is Hackel's 
 Moneron or Huxley's Bathybius the witness they bring 
 on to the stand? We deny the assumption, and demand 
 demonstrative proof. If Professor Hackel is to be relied 
 on, he finds these monera still in existence through his 
 friend, the microscope. This race of beings is quite a 
 hundred millions of years old, and are likely to survive 
 their posterity and us, his lineal descendants. How does 
 this tally with Mr. Darwin's "survival of the fittest?" 
 In this struggle for existence the monera promise well to 
 win the day. They ought, in accordance with this fine- 
 spun theory, to have been extinct long ages ago; but they 
 are lively witnesses against modern Evolution. It is a 
 clear case of the oldest outliving all his vast posterity, 
 and overthrowing the very dogma it was intended to estab- 
 lish ! One of the promises I made some weeks since, was 
 that I would use the chief weapons of my adversaries to 
 demolish their theory. 
 
 I quote again from Professor Hackel (History of Cre- 
 ation, Vol. I, pp. 185, 186, and 345) : "Of still greater, 
 nay, the very greatest importance to the hypothesis of 
 spontaneous generation are finally, the exceedingly re- 
 markable Monera, those creatures which we have already so 
 frequently mentioned, and which are not only the simplest 
 of all observed organisms, but even the simplest of all im- 
 
 17 
 
258 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 aginable organisms. Through the discovery of these organ- 
 isms, which are of the utmost importance, the supposition 
 of a spontaneous generation loses most of its difficulties." 
 
 "The whole body of these most simple of all organ- 
 isms — a semi fluid, a formless and simple lump of albu- 
 men, consists in fact of only a single chemical combination. 
 Formerly, when the doctrine of spontaneous generation 
 was advocated, it failed at once of adherents on account 
 of the composite structure of the simplest organisms then 
 knowp. It is only since we have discovered the exceed- 
 ingly important Monera, with organisms not in any way 
 built up of distinct organs, but which consist solely of a 
 single chemical combination, and yet grow, nourish, and 
 propagate themselves, that this great difficulty has been 
 removed, and the hypothesis of spontaneous generation 
 has gained a degree of probability which entitles it to 
 fill up the gap existing between Kant's Cosmogony and 
 Lamark's Theory of Descent." 
 
 "Only such homogeneous organisms as are yet not 
 differentiated and are similar to the inorganic crystals, 
 in being homogeneously composed of one simple substance, 
 could arise by spontaneous generation and could become 
 the primeval parents of all other organisms." 
 
 "When the Moneron moves itself there are formed on 
 the upper surface of the little mucous globule shapeless 
 finger-like processes, or very fine radiated threads. These 
 are the so-called false feet, or pseudopodia." 
 
 I desire to give it as my candid opinion that it would 
 be difficult to find in a scientific work of this or any other 
 age so many contradictions and careless statements in the 
 same number of words. Let us analyze this remarkable 
 deliverance of the first Evolutionist of our times, and see 
 if my judgment is correct. 
 
 He tells us that the Monera "are exceedingly remark- 
 able !" and that they are of "the very greatest importance" 
 to his hypothesis of spontaneous generation, and this he 
 is determined you shall not forget. They are without 
 doubt exceedingly remarkable ! ' "They are the simplest 
 of all observed organisms; nay, they are the simplest of 
 
EVOLUTION. 259 
 
 all imaginable organisms !" They are declared in one 
 sentence to be organs, and in the next that if they have 
 organs "all trace of organization, all distinction of heter- 
 ogeneous parts is still wanting in them;" and yet he 
 assures you that while there is still no trace of organs to 
 be seen, or "heterogeneous parts," that "all the vital phe- 
 nomena (or functions) are performed by one and the same 
 heterogeneous and formless matter." In the very next 
 paragraph he tells you that the organless moneron, "this 
 exceedingly remarkable moneron," "which consists solely 
 of a single chemical combination," is nothing but "a form- 
 less and simple lump of albumen, similar to the inorganic 
 crystal" (I use his very language), and what is the most 
 remarkable of all his statements about this "exceedingly 
 remarkable" little animal is, that it eats and grows and 
 has false feet or "pseudopodia," and "moves itself," and 
 on the upper surface of the little mucous globule shape- 
 less finger-like processes or very fine radiated threads 
 are seen, which are the so-called false feet. Now it has 
 shapeless finger-like processes or fine radiated threads; 
 and now it has no organs that are traceable ! How are 
 these contradictory assertions to be reconciled? He tells 
 us it is a "simple lump of albumen" one moment, similar 
 to inorganic crystal, and the next that it has these heter- 
 ogeneous parts or pseudopodia or radiated fingers and 
 moves itself. He talks about its being "a chemical combi- 
 nation of a single substance." How can a thing be a 
 combination of only one substance? How can any living 
 creature eat and grow and move itself without organs 
 of motion and assimilation? Such a proposition is too 
 absurd to deserve a serious reply. Now what does all this 
 minute description of this moneron by the Professor 
 mean? He is very desirous of belittling this very little 
 pelagic animal to show that it was very nearly without 
 organs, that he might make the superficial reader believe 
 that an animal that had no organism, or next to none, 
 might bridge the immense chasm between "the living 
 and the not living," that he was betrayed into all this 
 supreme nonsense. I doubt not that his Moneron is a real 
 
2 6o STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 living being with a perfect organism, whether the micro- 
 scope shows it distinctly or not. I doubt not that it has 
 nerves and muscles and eyes if it needs them, and fingers 
 or pseudopodia, and has a will to control its movements, 
 and organs of digestion if it eats and grows. I do not 
 believe that any of God's works are defective, however 
 small. I will let you into the secret, or rather Professor 
 Hackel lets us into the secret of this attempt to belittle 
 God's work in these significant words, repeated several 
 times with emphasis : "Of the very greatest importance to 
 the hypothesis of spontaneous generation," "of the utmost 
 importance," "the exceedingly important Monera," "are 
 of the utmost importance to the theory of the first origin 
 of life;" that is to say, if he fails to establish spontaneous 
 generation through this formless, simple lump of albumen, 
 without organs, that are traceable by the microscope, then 
 his cause is lost. You see they are so insignificant, and 
 yet so important ! Performing all the functions of life 
 without anything to do it with ! Shades of Aristotle, 
 Bacon, and Lock, think of it ! What is this scientific age 
 coming to? Is that the style of reasoning taught in the 
 University of Jena? 
 
 But he gives away his theory in the following sentence, 
 "The supposition of spontaneous generation loses most 
 of its difficulties," by accepting his lame accounts of this 
 Moneron. Then he admits that spontaneous generation 
 "has its difficulties." On the "supposition !" But this age 
 does not take things on supposition. It must be demon- 
 strative proof. Nothing short of rigid induction, not even 
 deduction, will do, much less inferential suppositions and 
 assumptions. 
 
 But I must show you that he flatly contradicts himself. 
 He, in the paragraph just quoted, says the moneron is "a 
 simple lump of albumen," consisting "of one single chem- 
 ical combination," and then on page 327, Vol. I, History 
 of Creation, we have this: "In all living bodies without 
 (this includes the Moneron) exception there is a certain 
 quantity of water combined in a peculiar manner with 
 solid matter. All animals and plants, in fact all organisms. 
 
EVOLUTION. 261 
 
 consist in great measure of fluid water, which combines 
 in a peculiar manner with other substances." Now his 
 moneron is either an animal with organs and "other sub- 
 stances" besides simple albumen, or this last definition is 
 defective. He not only contradicts himself in his defi- 
 nition of his exceedingly remarkable Moneron; but he 
 contradicts his great master, Mr. Darwin. Darwin, in 
 his book on "Animals and Plants," page 483, Vol. I, says : 
 "We can not fathom the marvelous complexity of an 
 organic being; but on the hypothesis here advanced (pan- 
 genesis) this complexity is much increased. Each living 
 creature must be looked at as a microcosm, formed by a 
 host of self-propagating organisms inconceivably minute." 
 "Each living creature," according to this great expounder 
 of Evolution, "is a "microcosm" — a little world. That 
 hiatus can never be spanned by his Moneron, which he 
 confesses is essential to his hypothesis of spontaneous 
 generation. 
 
 But Professor Hackel has confessed that spontaneous 
 generation, which was possible at that early period, is not 
 possible now. He says (History of Creation, Vol. I, pp. 
 342, 343) : "The impossibility of such a process (spontane- 
 ous generation) can in fact never be proved. For how 
 can we know that in remote primeval times there did not 
 exist conditions quite different from those at present ob- 
 taining, and which may have rendered spontaneous gener- 
 ation possible? "Think only of the fact that enormous 
 masses of carbon, which we now find deposited in the 
 primary coal mountains," etc., "at that time under con- 
 ditions quite different from those of to-day, a spontaneous 
 generation, which now is perhaps no longer possible, may 
 have taken place" "Indeed, we can even positively and 
 with full assurance maintain that the general conditions 
 of life in primeval times must have been entirely different 
 from those of the present time." If it is impossible now, 
 as he here admits, the strong presumption is that it was 
 impossible then. Nay, I will prove to you in a few 
 moments that it was impossible then as now. But hear the 
 Professor ! He says "the impossibility of spontaneous 
 
262 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 generation can never be proved" by his opponents. This 
 is enough to cause Aristotle, Whately, and Jevons to turn 
 in their graves. He calls on us to prove a negative ! 
 Gentlemen, the onus probandi, or burden of proof, is on 
 them. Can they prove that it did take place, as they as- 
 sume? What do evolutionists certainly know about the 
 conditions of the world in primeval times? Professor 
 Hackel asks, "How can we know?" Sure enough, how 
 can they know that "the conditions were entirely differ- 
 ent" from "what they are now?" He here "even posi- 
 tively" asserts that they must have been different; nay, 
 "entirely different." Yes, these evolutionists are capable 
 of asserting "positively" and "with full assurance" what 
 never has nor can be proved by scientific demonstration ! 
 Their assurance is enormous ! This is a fair specimen 
 of their logic and dogmatism, and if you do not accept 
 their assumptions without any questionings you will be 
 charged "with camping with Moses" and "being a century 
 behind your age," and all that. I wonder if this is a speci- 
 men of the logic taught in the University of Jena, where 
 Mr. Hackel is a distinguished professor? But I prom- 
 ised to give you demonstrable proof that the conditions of 
 life were not "different in primeval times" from what they 
 are now, so as to make spontaneous generation possible 
 or even probable. In the argument we are not called on 
 to prove his absurd negative; but our position is so solid 
 and invulnerable that we can afford to prove his negative, 
 and we will make Professor Hackel one of the witnesses 
 to overthrow his own theory. I quote (History of Cre- 
 ation, Vol. II, p. 9) : "The first and longest division of the 
 organic history of the earth is formed by the primeval 
 epoch of the tangled forests. It comprises the immense 
 period from the first spontaneous generation, from the 
 origin of the first terrestrial organism to the end of the 
 Silurian system of deposits. During the immeasurable 
 space of time, which in all probability was much longer 
 than all the other four epochs taken together, the three 
 most extensive of all the Neptunic systems of strata were 
 deposited." 
 
EVOLUTION. 263 
 
 Now, gentlemen, get down your geologies, Hitchcock's 
 and Dana's, and any other text-book of repute, and look 
 into this remarkable assumption of Professor Hackel. He 
 here assumes, not proves, that the longest and first division 
 of the organic history of the earth is formed "by the era 
 of the tangled forests," and that this epoch was probably 
 "much longer than all the other four epochs taken to- 
 gether." Then the Devonian intervened before the Car- 
 boniferous era began. Do not omit to note, that at least 
 fifty millions of years (at the most moderate estimate of 
 these scientists) intervened between the era of the tangled 
 forests and the Carboniferous era. I call on you, gentle- 
 men, to note here especially that Professor Hackel, the 
 most illustrious evolutionist after Charles Darwin, has 
 told you that "spontaneous generation" was rendered pos- 
 sible and highly probable "by the enormous masses of 
 carbon" in the carbon age. But here he emphatically tells 
 us that spontaneous generation took place hundreds of 
 millions of years before the Corboniferous era began, when 
 he says the era of tangled forests "comprises the immense 
 period from the first spontaneous generation, from the 
 origin of the first terrestrial organism to the end of the 
 Silurian system of deposits." Thus he is guilty of the 
 blunder of first assuming that spontaneous generation oc- 
 curred in the carbon age, when the conditions were prob- 
 ably favorable, and then asserting that it took place away 
 back millions of years, before there was any carbon. What 
 proof, I ask, has this prententious scientist for asserting 
 that there was any carbon as far back as the Devonian 
 age, to say nothing of the Laurentian era ? There are no 
 coal deposits in those strata to prove his assumption. They 
 explode his theory of spontaneous generation by carbon 
 completely. On the contrary, we have positive evidence 
 of life in the Devonian and Laurentian ages, seen in the 
 remains of fishes such as Ganoids and Mollusks, and that 
 too without any change in their organic structures. If 
 we prove this to our evolution friends by their greatest 
 master, Mr. Darwin, they ought to be convinced that 
 Hackel's theory of spontaneous generation is not only self- 
 
264 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 contradictory, but utterly without foundation. Hear Mr. 
 Darwin (Origin of Species, pp. 293, 294) : "Some groups 
 [of mollusks], as we have seen, have endured from the 
 earliest known dawn of life to the present day." "In 
 the genus lingula, for instance, the species which have 
 successively appeared at all ages must have been connected 
 by an unbroken series of generations from the lowest 
 Silurian stratum to the present day." Thus we have 
 proved by the facts of geology and the concessions of the 
 first evolutionists of the age, that the conditions of life 
 were not "different then" from what they are now, seeing 
 that we have the same animals now without any change 
 of structure that lived in those far distant epochs. If this 
 theory of spontaneous generation is not completely shiv- 
 ered by these stubborn facts, then no additional proof 
 would convince those "who love darkness rather than 
 light." I can not dispose of Professor Hacker's exploded 
 theory of spontaneous generation better than quoting from 
 an able pen a short caricature of his pet hypothesis: "If 
 living beings could come into existence by spontaneous 
 generation, why could not carbon? Besides, how does 
 he know but that the earth was visited by a monstrous 
 comet at the close of the Devonian age, and that it left 
 its carbon tail, which inaugurated the coal period?" In- 
 deed, we can positively and with full assurance maintain 
 that since "the conditions of life" were "entirely differ- 
 ent" in those "primeval times," it may have been custom- 
 ary for comets to visit the earth and leave their tails as 
 a token of friendly regard, and I can even positively assert 
 that one immense tail was composed entirely of carbon, 
 which in time condensed into coal, inclosing a few speci- 
 mens of vegetation which have successfully fooled modern 
 geologists, and made them think that the coal mountains 
 were of vegetable origin ! "The impossibility of such a 
 process can, in fact, never be proved," and of course it 
 must therefore be accepted as science ! I also "positively 
 maintain," and "with full assurance," that diamonds, which 
 are composed of pure carbon, originated in that way, 
 owing their spontaneous generation to the tail of a comet ! 
 
EVOLUTION. 265 
 
 Hackel can not disprove it, since the "conditions of life" 
 were so "entirely different in those cometic times." If 
 Moses had ever been guilty of giving such a puerile and 
 senseless theory of creation as this, he would have been 
 classed with the Spokane Indians, who have a theory that 
 is extant among them to this day, that the falls and water 
 power that adorn your beautiful city were put there by 
 the wild coyotes. This superstition is about on a par with 
 the carbon theory of Professor Hackel. What superlative 
 nonsense to be dignified with the name of science ! I pro- 
 pose to lend my feeble efforts to stamp out such twaddle 
 passing under the name of the latest and best thought of 
 the age. Professor Hackel, who has a remarkable dis- 
 taste for miracles, asserts emphatically that there is no 
 need of a Divine Being in the creation of any living 
 species or genus, but attributes the entire work of creation 
 to the action of blind law under his theory of spontaneous 
 generation. He says (for I dare not make an utterance 
 in regard to these scientific gentlemen without quoting 
 their very words) in his History of Creation, Vol. I, 
 p. 176: "All the different forms of organisms, which 
 people are usually inclined to look upon as the products 
 of creative power, acting for a definite purpose, we, ac- 
 cording to the theory of selection, can conceive as a neces- 
 sary production of natural selection working without a 
 purpose." You observe here that Professor Hackel has 
 gone over to the ground of Mr. Darwin of natural selec- 
 tion, which is a tacit concession that his theory of spon- 
 taneous generation might some day break down, as we 
 have seen it has most signally done. Then if natural 
 selection is to be adopted as it is by a large class of evo- 
 lutionists, there is this serious obstacle confronting him 
 and them at the very threshold of active being; namely, 
 there must be something to select from before selection 
 can take place, and there must be a large variety to select 
 from to have the fittest to survive the not fit, which must 
 outnumber greatly the fit. If that oft-repeated formula of 
 Darwin, "The survival of the fittest," is worthy a place 
 in true science, there must of necessity have been a wide 
 
266 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 margin to select from before natural selection could oper- 
 ate. This rugged obstacle has never yet been surmounted. 
 It is due to Charles Darwin, however, to say that he ad- 
 mits that there must have been a miracle performed by an 
 intelligent First Cause to create "one or a few simple 
 beings" to start with; but this being done, all the count- 
 less species of plants and animals have been evolved with- 
 out further aid from the Creator. But most of the leading 
 Evolutionists hold that nothing but blind law has been 
 concerned in the work of our varied creation. I submit 
 that such a theory of creation is a thousand-fold more 
 miraculous if true, than that God created all living species 
 of plants and animals, including men, by specific acts 
 than the theory of atheistic evolution. This theory is 
 squarely in the face of the well-established fact that 
 "there can be no effect without a cause." There can be 
 no effect without an adequate cause. This law is as true 
 and better established than Newton's law of gravitation. 
 No well-balanced scientist of this or any age would dare 
 to openly assail this law of cause and effect, though many 
 evolutionists do assail it indirectly, inferentially, and sub- 
 stantially. If some traveler through Africa should come 
 upon the great pyramids and the sphinx without ever hav- 
 ing heard of them, he doubtless would be surprised at their 
 immense size and construction, with the tremendous and 
 ponderuos blocks of stone piled one upon another to the 
 height of hundreds of feet ! If he should investigate them 
 internally and witness the inscriptions, hieroglyphics, 
 paintings, and sarcophagi with their embalmed mummies, 
 his surprise and wonder would further increase. Suppose 
 he should sit down and philosophize thus: "I see these 
 ancient monuments and am struck with their size, crypts, 
 sarcophagi, and hieroglyphics, a significant history of a 
 dead past. I conclude that all this is a result of Nature's 
 wonderful operations, 'some favorable conditions' assorted 
 by natural selection, 'some peculiar environment of mat- 
 ter/ probably the result of 'spontaneous generation.' I 
 see in all this 'some promise and potency of every form of 
 life,' some happy concurrence or chemical affinity among 
 
EVOLUTION. 267 
 
 the sandstones; in a word, this is a significant monument 
 of 'the survival of the fittest.' " He talks like an evolu- 
 tionist. While thus soliloquizing some traveler or anti- 
 quarian steps up and interviews him, and suggests that 
 probably some ancient people during the times of the 
 Pharaohs were the authors of these piles; he could aptly 
 reply that there were no living witnesses of that; that 
 there were no engines or machinery extant that could have 
 placed those vast blocks at that elevation ! Therefore it 
 must be the work of Nature, and has been evoluted from 
 some primary pattern that came into existence through 
 the potency there is in Natural law. Which is the greater 
 philosopher of the two, gentlemen of the nineteenth cen- 
 tury, the antiquarian who concluded that the Egyptians 
 reared them, or that they came there accidentally, without 
 purpose or plan, or intelligent agency? The cases are 
 as nearly analogous as is possible. In other words, which 
 would be the more striking miracle, the building these 
 pyramids by skilled mechanics, or the doctrines of natural 
 selection, without a plan or "purpose?" Which is the 
 greatest miracle, think you; that a personal, intelligent, 
 and omnipotent Creator made all the species of living 
 beings, with their peculiar characteristics and with capac- 
 ities to perpetuate themselves; or that all these originated 
 from the "simple moneron" of Hackel, or by ''natural 
 selection" without anything to select from of Darwin? It 
 is evidently a greater wonder to witness such immense 
 and varied results from inadequate causes, than to suppose 
 that God, the great First Cause, created all living tribes 
 and endowed them with capacities to perpetuate their re- 
 spective species, as we now constantly witness they do, 
 and ever have done since the dawn of earliest historic 
 times. Remember the well-established law that "every 
 effect must have an adequate cause." No plan or purpose 
 in Creation ! Now if these learned men would sit down 
 and reverently examine a human hand, or an eye, or an 
 ear, they could not fail to see adaptation of means to an 
 end in these marvelous instruments ! The relation of the 
 hand to the necessary avocations of life, of the eye to the 
 
268 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 light, with its delicate and perfect lenses for the refraction 
 of the rays, and the back chamber to receive images, and 
 the consummate system of nerves to transmit these images 
 to the sensorum or brain; and the ear and its relation to 
 sound, with its exquisite bones, caverns, tubes, and drum 
 for the modification of sound ! No purpose or plan in all 
 this varied and delicate machinery ! All the result of 
 spontaneous generation and natural selection under the 
 guidance of blind, unintelligent law ! This outmiracles 
 all the miracles of the Old and New Testaments by a thou- 
 sand-fold ! It were as reasonable to suppose ; nay, as 
 credible, as if a man should accidentally discover a poem 
 or oration surpassing in sublimity and beauty the Iliad of 
 Homer or Webster written in pure English on the walls 
 of Yosemite, and infer that they came there by sponta- 
 neous generation or natural selection without any plan or 
 purpose, as this wonderful world of living, throbbing in- 
 telligences without the interposition of a Supreme intelli- 
 gent cause. Topsy, when asked who made her, replied 
 "that she just growed." Her philosophy is not excelled 
 as a rational theory by Hackel, Huxley, or even Darwin. 
 Gentlemen, it is high time that we get on our knees before 
 a personal God, the first and adequate cause of all things ! 
 This is our proper attitude in the presence of these living 
 facts ! We propose in these lectures to examine the 
 strongest arguments of Messrs. Darwin, Hackel, and Hux- 
 ley in favor of their theory of Evolution. We expect to 
 be fair, and present their very strongest facts and attack 
 their philosophy in their stronghold without much or any 
 reference to the Mosaic account of Creation. Moses did 
 not need our help or sympathy. While we mean to be fair 
 and strictly honest, we do not intend to exercise much 
 mercy to their assumptions. My next lecture will be on 
 Heredity, or Anatomical resemblances as proving man's 
 descent from fishes and the monkey tribe as advocated by 
 these eminent naturalists. 
 
EVOLUTION. 269 
 
 II. 
 
 In my first lecture you will remember that I confined 
 my remarks principally to Professor Hackel's theory of 
 Spontaneous Generation, with some brief notice of Mr. 
 Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. I now proceed 
 to examine their strongest arguments for Evolution. If 
 I succeed in overthrowing these, it will be unnecessary to 
 notice their weaker arguments. 
 
 Professor Hackel next undertakes to prove that man 
 was evolved from some gilled and vertebrate ancestors 
 as the fish and the monkey. This he thinks he proves 
 unquestionably from certain embryonic resemblances of 
 anatomical structure that he professes to have discovered. 
 He devotes two large volumes mainly to this subject, 
 showing the importance he attaches to his theory of de- 
 scent. These, gentlemen, certainly have a zeal worthy a 
 more rational theory. Their perseverance is dogged and 
 untiring. They are ransacking all creation for facts 
 against Moses. All right. I have no fears that they will 
 ever seriously damage the Mosaic account of creation. 
 This matter of the resemblances of anatomical structure 
 of vertebrate animals (or more plainly those having a 
 jointed backbone) is far-fetched and unphilosophical, as 
 establishing the theory of Descent or Evolution of man. 
 Let us examine it. Hackel infers from the fact that man 
 has a backbone or spine, that he must of necessity have 
 descended from some vertebrate species. The earliest 
 known vertebrate animal is admitted to be the Ganoid or 
 fish; therefore he assumes that our descent is from some 
 fish ancestor. But if the ganoid is the earliest known 
 vertebrate animal, what was its nearest lineal ancestor? 
 for his theory requires, as does Mr. Darwin's, that they 
 must have had a vertebrate ancestor, or else the ganoid 
 must have had a specific creation, or come into being by 
 spontaneous generation. But I had better quote what 
 Professor Hackel says on the subject. In his "Evolution 
 of Man" he quotes from a former work of his on Morph- 
 ology, and we have these words : "The history of the evo- 
 
2 ;o STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 lution of organisms consists of two kindred and closely 
 connected parts : Ontogeny, which is the history of the 
 evolution of individual organisms; and Philogeny, which 
 is the history of the evolution of organic tribes. Ontogeny 
 is a brief and rapid recapitulation of philogeny, dependent 
 on the physiological functions of heredity (or reproduc- 
 tion) and adaptation (or nutrition). The individual or- 
 ganism reproduces in the rapid and short course of its 
 own evolution the most important of the changes in form 
 through which its ancestors, according to laws of heredity 
 and adaptation, have passed in the slow and long course 
 of their paleontological evolution." 
 
 Also from Vol. I, p. 6, "History of Creation," he fur- 
 ther explains : "This fundamental law to which we shall 
 again and again recur, and on the recognition of which 
 depends the thorough understanding of the history of evo- 
 lution, is briefly expressed in the proposition that the his- 
 tory of the germ is an epitome of the history of descent; 
 or, in other words, that ontogeny is a recapitulation of 
 philogeny; or, somewhat more explicitly, that the series 
 of forms through which the individual organism passes 
 during its progress from the egg-cell to its fully developed 
 state is a brief compressed reproduction of the long series 
 of forms through which the animal ancestors of that 
 organism (or the ancestral forms of its species) have 
 passed from the earliest periods of so-called organic cre- 
 ation down to the present time." 
 
 Do not be frightened by the big words ontogeny, 
 philogeny, etc. If the professor is not learned he is noth- 
 ing. He must be indulged in his "philosophical culture" 
 a little. This new terminology is not only convenient 
 to make you stare at the remarkable scientific culture 
 these men prate about so much, but it is a good cloak to 
 cover up a very weak and defective philosophy. We will 
 attempt to translate this long paragraph into common Eng- 
 lish so that we may get the real thing he aims at. Ontog- 
 eny, if it means anything, means this, every living indi- 
 vidual, being, or thing in its development from its earliest 
 start to full growth has in itself all the characteristics 
 
EVOLUTION. 271 
 
 that all the long line of monkeys, tortoises, and fishes, etc., 
 possessed from which it descended; and philogeny is a 
 history of the descent of the tribes or classes of animals 
 and plants to which these individuals belong. All this is 
 to prepare you for Professor Hackel's coming announce- 
 ment of resemblances of anatomical structure proving 
 descent from pre-existing orders or species. 
 
 Let us spend a few moments in looking at this much 
 vaunted theory. These vertebral and gill resemblances, 
 supposed to be discovered in the human embryo, is a most 
 violent assumption that the Creator was shut up to the 
 necessity that if He created the different species of verte- 
 brates of building every species on a different plan. Not 
 so. Of course He could have done this as a simple act of 
 power, but He was wiser than that. He preferred, like a 
 wise and skillful architect, to have a general plan for all 
 vertebrates, with an almost infinite variety of dissimilar- 
 ities to distinguish the several species from each other and 
 individualize them. But Professor Hackel and Mr. Dar- 
 win do the same thing by natural selection, without know- 
 ing it, thus complimenting the wisdom and skill of the 
 Creator's work unwittingly, but claiming the credit thereof 
 for natural selection under the guidance of blind, unintelli- 
 gent law. Allow me to illustrate. A common wheel- 
 barrow or velocipede has but one wheel, and a cart has 
 two, and a buggy four, and some locomotives eight wheels, 
 constructed on one general plan. Does it follow, of neces- 
 sity, from this resemblance in the simple matter of the 
 wheel that one was evoluted from the other by natural 
 selection? Certainly not. It is no disparagement that 
 these are regarded as distinct creations by intelligent 
 mechanics. They might all be made by one architect, and 
 may redound to his wisdom and skill. So the different 
 varieties of vertebrates as certainly declare the wisdom 
 and skill of the Divine Architect. Again, take the uni- 
 versal cog-wheel used in the almost endless variety of 
 useful machinery. It is the common and universal pat- 
 tern for all machinery differing more widely in their ap- 
 pearances, construction, and purposes than the wheel- 
 
272 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 barrow, bicycle, and carriage. The general plan of the 
 cogs is not changed because of the different uses of the 
 machines. The watch has cogs, the thresher has cogs, 
 the header has cogs, the waterwheel has cogs, and so 
 hundreds of other machines, no two of which are engaged 
 in the same kind of work. Does it therefore follow that 
 this is any reflection on the inventor of the cog-wheel? 
 Does it legitimately or scientifically follow that all ma- 
 chinery having cog-wheels of necessity were evoluted from 
 the original cog-wheel. This is Professor Hackel's "ontog- 
 eny and philogeny" in a nutshell. But does not the verte- 
 brate or spinal arrangement in the animal creation, in an 
 almost infinite variety of species, adapting them to their 
 different situations and purposes speak volumes to the 
 great Creator's intelligence and skill, who did not think 
 it necessary to vary the principle of the spinal column 
 in all the different species to show off His power to give 
 each class of vertebrates a backbone constructed on a dif- 
 ferent principle or pattern? This ontogeny theory is a 
 wild assumption incapable of demonstration any more 
 than that all machines having cog-wheels were evoluted 
 by natural selection from the first cog-wheel. The i^a 
 or hint may have been suggested to the inventors of the 
 host of machines having cogs, but the evolution you will 
 clearly see was in the brains of the inventor, and not in 
 the machines. Resemblance then of anatomical structure 
 in one single particular of the backbone is too small a 
 basis to prove this important matter of descent. It utterly 
 fails to satisfy the inductive and scientific method of this 
 age. It is, to say the most for it, a very improbable 
 hyopthesis. Let it be remembered that these anatomical 
 resemblances or vertebrate and tailed animals to one or 
 two or a very few particulars are the chief arguments in 
 support of evolution. I do not misstate the case. What 
 think you of the dogma that has no broader foundation 
 to stand on than this vertebrate resemblance, and prob- 
 ably that of the supposed gills of a fish ? If resemblances 
 of anatomical structure are of such great importance to 
 establish this theory, why has it escaped the notice of these 
 
EVOLUTION. 273 
 
 savants in structural anatomy to overlook the conspicuous 
 fact that almost every animal has a head, two eyes, two 
 ears, two nostrils, and a mouth. They all resemble each 
 other greatly in other particulars; they have tongues, 
 teeth, stomach, liver, heart, and lungs. We could greatly 
 multiply these resemblances. You see how generous we 
 are to help our evolutionist brethren out in this argument 
 of resemblances ! Truly we must all have descended from 
 some original animal that had all these varied organs in 
 excess. Why, I am perfectly surprised and stunned by 
 these accumulated points of resemblances ! Surely the flea 
 and dog must have descended from the elephant or rhi- 
 noceros, for they have both eyes, mouth, stomach, heart 
 (and I suspect they each have a liver, for they both 
 live [?]), but it is an unsolved problem as yet which will 
 survive the other, or which is the fittest to survive. Why, 
 bless your dear souls, Professor Hackel and Charles Dar- 
 win, why did you not push this question of anatomical 
 resemblances to its legitimate bounds and utterly over- 
 whelm the Mosaic account of the creation? I am really 
 sorry that Mr. Darwin died without seeing the breadth and 
 strength of this celebrated argument from resemblances. 
 Professor Hackel ought to have sagacity and penetration 
 enough to see this splendid opportunity ! and push it to 
 a triumphant success. But jesting aside, gentlemen, the 
 theory breaks down by its own weakness and poverty of 
 facts. Evolutionists seem to have an idea that whatever 
 they advance will be accepted without question; but they 
 have "mistaken the age in which they live." Nothing is 
 taken for granted now without well demonstrated truth. 
 Again, Messrs. Darwin and Hackel and Huxley enter 
 a new field in search of proof for evolution. This time it 
 is the delicate field of embryology. They go armed with 
 microscopes hunting facts and resemblances. Professor 
 Hackel regards this as the kingdom of his richest discov- 
 eries and greatest triumphs. I will give Professor 
 Hackel's "gill and tail argument," with which Charles 
 Darwin agrees, as their supreme proof of the descent of 
 man, first from the fish and on down the line of descent 
 18 
 
274 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 to the ape. Professor Hackel has elaborate plates or cuts 
 in the best dress of the artist to represent his pretended 
 discoveries in embryology under the revealing power of 
 the microscope. With these gorgeous plates he seems 
 perfectly satisfied, and invites the special attention of the 
 reader to them. I now quote from his "History of Cre- 
 ation" (Vol. I, pp. 289, 307, 308, 310, and 314). He says: 
 "I wish specially to draw attention to plates 2 and 3, 
 which represent embryos in all stages of development, 
 and in which we are not able to recognize a trace of the 
 full-grown animal. . . . Every one surely knows the 
 gill arches of the fish. Now the gill arches originally exist 
 the same in man, in dogs, in fowls, and in tortoises, as 
 well as in other vertebrate animals. . . . Finally, 
 while comparing the embryos on plates 2 and 3, we must 
 not fail to give attention to the human tail, an organ which 
 in the original condition man shares with all other verte- 
 brate animals. Now man in the first months of develop- 
 ment possesses a real tail, as well as his nearest kindred, 
 the tailless apes (orang-outang, chimpanzee, gorilla) and 
 vertebrate animals in general. ... In this intimate 
 connection of ontogeny and philogeny, I see one of the 
 most important and irrefutable proofs of the theory of 
 descent. No one can explain these phenomena unless he 
 has recourse to the laws of inheritance and adaptation. 
 By these alone are they explicable. . . . The rudi- 
 mentary little tail of a man is an irrefutable proof of the 
 fact that he is descended from tailed ancestors." I sup- 
 pose now after this quotation no one will charge me with 
 exaggerating the position of the leading modern evolu- 
 tionists. Professor Hackel intends to show by these plates 
 that the embryo man at a certain stage of development 
 has gills like a fish and a tail like a monkey. In one of 
 these cuts he represents the embryo as having six open- 
 ings or slits across the throat and in front of the head and 
 neck. In the next stage he shows but four. Here is a 
 reduction at one bound of one-third of the number of 
 gill arches, which is flatly in the face of his and Darwin's 
 careful and emphatic statements, that transformations and 
 
EVOLUTION. 275 
 
 changes never occur by "sudden leaps." Darwin says: 
 "Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight 
 successive variations; she can never take a great and 
 sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though 
 slow steps. ... As natural selection acts solely by 
 accumulating slight successive favorable variations, it can 
 produce no great and sudden modifications." (Origin of 
 Species, pp. 156, 413.) 
 
 Now if this change from six to four parts in a few days 
 is not a sudden and great leap, what can be? They con- 
 stantly remind us in their works that many ages were 
 necessary to change one species to another; but here this 
 foremost and boldest evolutionist shows us by his plates 
 that a great change occurs in a few days, or weeks at 
 most. The most serious blunder that this industrious 
 naturalist has made, however, is this: He has, unfortu- 
 nately for his cause, placed his gill-arches in the human 
 embryo in the wrong place. In the embryo fish they are 
 found on the side of the head and neck, but in the human 
 embryo, as shown in his plates, these openings are in 
 front of the head and neck. But in the fish plate there is 
 no change in the number of the gill-arches, as in the hu- 
 man embryo. This is an important fact. How did the 
 gill-arches from our fish ancestors sweep around from the 
 side of the head and neck to the front in a few weeks at 
 most? Now the simple explanation of these supposed 
 gills in the human embryo is, that there has been either 
 an egregious blunder or a deliberate fraud on the part 
 of Professor Hackel in preparing these plates. There are 
 no gill-arches in the human embryo. These openings on 
 the front of the neck and head of the human embryo that 
 the microscope reveals are the initial mouth, tongue, jaw- 
 bones, nose, and eyes. The additional openings that have 
 disappeared were simple wrinkles or folds of the neck 
 when the head reclines on the breast of the foetus. These 
 supposed gill-arches of Professor Hackel differentiate into 
 the bone of the tongue, jaw-bones, nose, and eyes, i will 
 prove this by putting the professor on the stand as the 
 principal witness. Hear him in his "Evolution of Man" 
 
276 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 (Vol. I, p. 404) : "The first pair of gill-arches differentiate 
 into the rudiments of the upper and lower jaws, the tongue 
 bone and the bones (ossicles) of the ear." 
 
 Will the professor be so kind as to inform us how the 
 fish gets its nasal openings, mouth, and jaw-bones from 
 the gill-arches on the side of the head? Now you may 
 be able to see one of the possible reasons why the Creator 
 put these openings or slits in the human embryo in front 
 instead of the side of the head; viz., to fool such empiri- 
 cists as Professor Hackel, who would rather find a seem- 
 ing resemblance looking to his theory, than any solid fact 
 that would be against him. Whoever heard of the gill- 
 arches of a fish sweeping around the quarter of a circle 
 from side to front, as he makes those of the embryo child 
 do? The subject of human embryology is an infinitely 
 more difficult fact to demonstrate than that of piscatology, 
 and every cautious and conscientious investigator would 
 be more careful what he published for demonstrative fact 
 than this gentleman has been. Why has not this indefat- 
 igable student of natural history taken his microscope, as 
 he could have done; why does he not do it now, and ob- 
 serve the development of the young fish from the simple 
 egg to complete development of the embryo, and settle 
 this gill question forever? He can see every change that 
 occurs every twenty-four hours, and draw his plates ac- 
 cordingly, and verify them to the satisfaction of every 
 seeker after truth. This he has not done, or if he has 
 done it he has never given the real facts to the world. In 
 all of Professor Hackel's other plates the human embryo 
 with gills is the only case where the number of organic 
 parts shown in the earlier stages, such as legs, arms, fin- 
 gers, toes, fins, claws, hoofs, eyes, ears, etc., decrease in 
 number as development advances. Why this single ex- 
 ception? What comes of this hasty, undemonstrated as- 
 sumption ? It is a mere fiction. 
 
 But I come to the little "human tail" argument of 
 Ernst Hackel upon which so much is staked, to prove 
 the descent of man from the monkey. It is a very "little 
 tail," and a much smaller argument to prove it as some 
 
EVOLUTION. 277 
 
 people think. I am compelled to inform you that the 
 professor had his artist who prepared his elaborate plates 
 represent the human embryo with this "tail," to convince 
 you that your nearest ancestor was a monkey. Let me 
 repeat what he says by way of refreshment. "Man in the 
 first months of development possesses a real tail as well 
 as his nearest kindred, the tailless apes. . . . This 
 rudimentary little tail of man is an irrefutable proof of 
 the fact that he is descended from tailed ancestors." I 
 come now to ask you people of common sense and you 
 cultured people of this city to examine with me the pro- 
 fessor's foundation for this story of the human tail. If 
 you will get down your physiologies and look at the anat- 
 omy of man, you will find the terminal vertebra called the 
 "os coccyx." It is a cone-shaped bone, and is a little 
 longer than the other vertebrae of the spinal column, and 
 has a very slight resemblance to a short tail. In the em- 
 bryo it has the appearance of being proportionately longer 
 than in the developed spine; but this is only in appearance, 
 and not in fact. It is, in fact, not proportionately longer 
 in the child than in the adult. No intelligent physician 
 will deny this statement. There is no more tail in a 
 healthy born child than in a healthy adult. In the human 
 skeleton this bone seems elongated, but is not. So in the 
 embryo. This is what misled the professor. He was look- 
 ing for a human tail and he found an os coccyx, and in 
 his zeal and wish magnified this solitary little bone into a 
 tail, and you would imagine from his cut that it had as 
 many joints or vertebrae in it as in the tail of a common 
 monkey. I challenge any physiologist or microscopist to 
 prove that the tail of the embryo child has more than this 
 one joint called the os coccyx. Now this is all there is 
 of Professor Hackel's "human tail" that he affirms is an 
 irrefutable proof "of our descent from the monkey," or 
 "the tailless ape." It loses all its force as an argument 
 because it is not true. 
 
 Another serious blunder the professor has fallen into 
 in these plates, is a cut representing an infant with the 
 tail of a tortoise, showing our descent from tailed ances- 
 
278 STORY OF MY LfFE. 
 
 tors; and in another plate he shows an embryo fish with 
 an exact copy of the "little human tail." Now the fish 
 evidently did not descend from the tortoise, for the pro- 
 fessor tells us elsewhere that the tortoise must have de- 
 scended from the fish. Where did the fish get its human 
 tail, seeing the fish lived millions of years, according to 
 these scientists, before there were any monkeys or men? 
 The professor is in a predicament ! But a little farther 
 on he makes a slip that breaks the backbone of his theory 
 of descent. It is this about the Ascidian or Sea-squirt. 
 This animal, by all naturalists and by Professor Hackel, 
 is classed among invertebrates, or those without backbone. 
 In his book ("Evolution of Man," Vol. I, p. 432) we have 
 this : "In the mature sea-squirt there is no trace of a noto- 
 chord or an inner bony axis. This adds interest to the 
 fact that the young animal as it emerges from the egg 
 has a notochord, above which lies a rudimentary tube 
 (the spine). In the mature seasquirt this tube is entirely 
 shriveled up." "In this tail now develops a cylindrical 
 cord composed of cells, the anterior end of which extends 
 into the body of the larva, between the intestinal and 
 medullary tube. This is the corda dorsalis, an organ 
 which, except in this one case, is found only in vertebrates, 
 and of which no trace is to be seen in invertebrates." 
 (Ibid. Vol. I, p. 456.) 
 
 "Gill openings afterwards appear in the anterior sec- 
 tion of the intestinal canal, by which the whole anterior 
 intestine is formed into a gill-body. This remarkable 
 arrangement is, as we found, quite peculiar to vertebrates, 
 and, except in the ascidians, occurs nowhere else." (Ibid. 
 Vol. II, p. 85.) 
 
 "When these organs are complete, the progressive onto- 
 geny of the ascidian is at an end, and retrogression now 
 commences. The freely swimming ascidian larva sinks 
 to the bottom of the sea and becomes fixed. . . . The 
 tail, which is of no use, is now lost." 
 
 This long and particular account of the ascidian or 
 sea-squirt reveals the wonderful industry of this natural- 
 ist ! I* also reveals the fact that he is looking after the 
 
EVOLUTION. 279 
 
 descent of man, by his careful and particular account of 
 the "notochord" and "medullary tube" of this ascidian 
 and its lost tail. He, you see, is on a still hunt for gill- 
 arches, spinal chords, and caudal appendages, and declares 
 himself successful in this very early denizen of the sea. 
 Admit it for argument's sake. What then? Let us see. 
 If this ascidian lived long ages before the vertebrate fishes, 
 from what race did he get his embryonic gills, corda dor- 
 salis, and tail? Do not allow it to escape your notice, that 
 this sea-squirt existed millions of years before the verte- 
 brate gill-fish had a being. How could natural selection 
 in this case act where there were no vertebrates or gill- 
 fish or tails to select from? How can he bridge this vast 
 chasm ? How can he escape the consequences of his con- 
 tradictory philosophy? But again, this ascidian illustra- 
 tion completely upsets the hypothesis of the "survival of 
 the fittest." Its continued existence to this day and its 
 aborting its backbone, gills, and tail, the evidences of the 
 superior races from which it sprang, completely shatters 
 whatever is vital in Darwinism. Has the fittest in this 
 case survived? This distinguished scientist has written 
 two large volumes to prove spontaneous generation, and 
 two more as large to prove the descent of man from the 
 fish and monkey; and it is no exaggeration to say that 
 he has contradicted himself nearly a dozen times in each 
 volume. This is the gentleman who charged a large num- 
 ber of naturalists, every way his equals, with lack "of 
 philosophical culture," and "calling them rude empiricists" 
 and "destitute of the most important facts of embryology." 
 Here it is (History of Creation, Vol. II, pp. 247, 249, 
 250) : "What is even more detrimental to the general 
 understanding of nature as a whole, than this one-sided 
 tendency, is the want of philosophical culture, and this 
 applies to most of the naturalists of the present day." 
 "It is not to be wondered at that the deep, inner truth 
 of the theory of descent remains a sealed book to those 
 rude empiricists." "Even in our own day most paleon- 
 tologists examine and describe fossils without knowing 
 the most important facts of embryology." I submit that 
 
2 8o STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 this is a remarkable criticism on such men as Professors 
 Aggasiz and Dana, and, as he says, "most paleontologists" 
 of our day, after such palpable blunders as this same 
 gentleman has been guilty of in embryology and paleon- 
 tology as we have been reviewing. Such egotism and self- 
 laudation is disgusting to all thinking people ! Some 
 one has said the professor "is slopping over with philo- 
 sophical culture." It needs to be soundly rebuked ! I 
 thank the professor for one concession he has inadvert- 
 ently made here, that "most of the naturalists of the pres- 
 ent day" are against him. But all who differ with him 
 will be set down as "rude empiricists." 
 
 Now after such a reckless and careless presentation 
 of supposed facts by leading scientists, is it any wonder 
 that there should be a growing distrust among thinking 
 people as to much that passes for science? Hear what 
 the foremost practical scientist of this or any age says 
 on this subject. I refer to Mr. Edison, who in his depart- 
 ment has no peer in Europe or America. He says : "The 
 text-books are mostly misleading. I get mad with myself 
 when I think what I have believed, what was so learnedly 
 set out in them. There are more frauds in science than 
 anywhere else. Take a whole pile of them that I can 
 name, and you will find uncertainty if not imposition in 
 half of what they state as scientific truth. They have time 
 and again set down experiments as done by them, curious 
 out-of-the-way experiments, that they never did, and upon 
 which they have founded so-called scientific truths. I 
 have been thrown off my track often by them, and for 
 months at a time. You see a great name and you believe 
 in it. Try the experiment yourself, and you find the re- 
 sult altogether different. 
 
 "I tell you I 'd rather know nothing about a thing in 
 science nine times out of ten, than what the books would 
 tell me — for practical purposes, for applied science, the 
 best science, the only science, I 'd rather take a thing 
 up and go through with it myself. . I 'd find out more about 
 it than any one could tell me, and I 'd be sure of what I 
 knew. That 's the thing. Professor this or that will con- 
 
EVOLUTION. 281 
 
 trovert you out of the books, and prove out of the books 
 that it can't be so, though you have it right in the hollow 
 of your hand all the time, and could break his spectacles 
 with it." (New York Herald, December 31, 1879.) 
 
 This is a true portraiture of much of the Darwinian 
 theory. One of the startling announcements of Professor 
 Hackel's Ontogeny theory, as quoted above, is, that every 
 man is an epitome or reproduction of the characteristics 
 of all the long line of ancestors through which he has 
 descended to his present high estate. That is, he pos- 
 sesses in the course of his evolution from infancy to full 
 development all the characteristics of the monkey, the hog, 
 the dog, the horse, the lion, the tiger, the hyena, the shark, 
 and the ganoid down to the moneron, or to use his own 
 words: "The series of form through which the individual 
 passes during its progress from the egg-cell to its devel- 
 oped state is a brief, compressed reproduction of a long 
 series of forms through which the animal ancestors have 
 passed from the earliest periods of so-called creation down 
 to the present time." 
 
 This is a scientific pill that is hard to swallow. A man 
 w T ho can gulp all that down without an intellectual revolt 
 must have an enormous maw for the novel and improb- 
 able, if not for the absurd and impossible. But credulity 
 cuts some queer capers in this intellectual age, and you 
 can just prepare yourselves for the absurd improbable 
 to any extent in the shifting and Protean phases of the 
 scientific infidelity and atheism of this century. 
 
 Just for one moment think of what is involved in this 
 assumption of Professor Hackel. If we are part moneron, 
 ganoid, shark, hyena, tiger, lion, hog, dog, and monkey, 
 and these are but a tithe of our ancestors, how much man 
 is there left? Where does human accountability begin 
 with all these transmitted animal characteristics? Are 
 any of man's ancestors accountable? How many of them 
 are endowed with conscience or the moral sense ? If none 
 of them possessed a conscience, could they transmit what 
 they never had? But universal man has a conscience; 
 where did he get this high endowment? Hackel if he 
 
282 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 answered would be compelled to say, "By spontaneous 
 generation," and Darwin by "Natural selection," without 
 anything to select from. Gentlemen, this philosophy is at 
 war with the best consciousness and intelligence of the 
 age and the history of the race. Man is a unique being. 
 He is sui generis. Nothing like it in the world of animal 
 existence ! His nearest kindred is angelic existence. "He 
 was made a little lower than the angels." He was made 
 in the "image of his Maker." It would be little less pro- 
 fane to assert that the angels that burn around the throne 
 eternal and supernal are descended from the baboon, as 
 to hint man's descent from the ape. In India monkeys are 
 held sacred and are worshiped. If we are descended 
 from these creatures, it would be about as innocent a kind 
 of idolatry as much as of the man-worship that is prac- 
 ticed in our world. We would modestly suggest that these 
 scientific gentlemen can hardly be sincere in their belief 
 that monkeys are their nearest ancestors, or they would 
 not treat them with the common contempt shown the most 
 inferior brute creation. Do not allow yourselves to be 
 fooled by these scientific pretensions — these gentlemen are 
 more anxious to overthrow Christianity than they are to 
 prove man's descent from the monkey. This is a very 
 thin and weak pretext. Why would it not be a pertinent 
 thing for Hackel and some of his admiring disciples to 
 write four more ponderous volumes to prove the descent 
 of the ape tribe, man's nearest relative, from some tortoise 
 or fish, seeing he is a vertebrate and has the supposed gill- 
 arches during his embryo state? Does any sane man be- 
 lieve that Darwin and Hackel would ever have under- 
 taken the herculean task they have in their researches to 
 prove that the present monkey tribe are descended from 
 vertebrate and branchial ancestors had Moses omitted to 
 mention man's creation as a specific act of the Creator, 
 but said the monkey was thus created? It is utterly im- 
 probable. There is no mention made in the Mosaic ac- 
 count of the creation of the angels, and they are doubtless 
 created beings. There are no industrious and laborious 
 researches to prove their descent from monkeys by these 
 
EVOLUTION. 283 
 
 cultured gentlemen ! In this fact there is food for reflec- 
 tion for thoughtful and candid men. Gentlemen, in this 
 erudite discussion of these savants inquire what can be the 
 motive for all this labor and research. When you shall 
 have discovered the real motive, you will turn on a flood 
 of light on this novel and unexpected discovery of man's 
 descent that will be surprising, and reveal to you the true 
 inwardness of modern evolution. 
 
 In the third lecture we will continue the subject of 
 heredity, or anatomical resemblances adduced by these 
 gentlemen to prove man's descent from the monkey tribe. 
 
 III. 
 
 Heredity and Anatomical Resemblances. 
 
 This lecture will be devoted to some additional phases 
 of heredity or descent. Much account is made of trans- 
 missions of physical characteristics and resemblances by 
 these leading evolutionists to prove the descent of man 
 from primitive protoplasm or moneron down through al- 
 most countless species of animals to his present high 
 estate. This is the argument upon which they most rely 
 to etablish a very absurd hypothesis, as we think. As the 
 "gill" and "tail" theory applied to man has been shown 
 to be a silly myth, so we hope to be able to show that 
 other supposed resemblances urged by these gentleman 
 are equally without any solid foundation in fact. These 
 facts, relied on to prove man's descent, are the absence 
 of upper teeth in cows, the supposed embryo legs and 
 teeth in whales and the boa constrictor. They insist that 
 these prove that these animals descended from ancestors 
 that had legs and teeth. If these are facts, which is ex- 
 ceedingly doubtful, then we propose to show that they are 
 among the strongest arguments against evolution. These 
 pretended facts are self-contradictory. They "utterly 
 shatter" "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest," 
 which is the main pillar of Mr. Darwin's fabric of evolu- 
 tion, and if this gives way the entire system of necessity 
 topples over. 
 
284 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 Let me state in as brief and perspicuous a paragraph 
 as possible what Darwin, Huxley, and Herbert Spencer 
 teach as implied in "natural selection" or ''survival of the 
 fittest." Natural selection implies that there is inherent 
 in matter "a potency and promise" of perfection, which 
 is constantly going on, overcoming and supplanting the 
 weakest elements in organic life and displacing and utterly 
 annihilating them, leaving only the strong and best to sur- 
 vive till the highest and most perfect are in supremacy 
 and complete dominion. This process is called "the strug- 
 gle for existence" and "the survival of the fittest." It 
 means, then, an upward tendency of perfect beneficial 
 progress, and not degeneration. 
 
 Now I quote from these eminent authorities to show 
 you that I have not misrepresented them in this definition 
 of evolution. Darwin says : "Natural selection acts ex- 
 clusively by the preservation and accumulation of vari- 
 ations which are beneficial." "Natural selection acts only 
 by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited 
 modifications, each profitable to the preserved being." "On 
 the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the 
 least injurious would be rigidly destroyed. The preser- 
 vation of favorable individual differences and variations, 
 and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have 
 called natural selection, or survival of the fittest." "New 
 and improved varieties continually take the place of and 
 supplant and exterminate the older." 
 
 "In all cases the new and improved forms of life tend 
 to supplant the old and unimproved forms." 
 
 "As natural selection works solely for and by the good 
 of each being, and corporeal and mental endowments will 
 tend to progress toward perfection." (Origin of Species, 
 PP- 6 3> 75> 97> 266 > 292, 413, and 428.) 
 
 You see how carefully he has weighed his words, and 
 I am glad he has been so explicit in his definitions. 
 
 Now hear Professor Huxley's definition of natural 
 selection, and note how exactly he agrees with Mr. Dar- 
 win. He says: "It seems impossible that any variation 
 which may arise in a species in nature should not tend 
 
EVOLUTION. 285 
 
 in some way or other to be a little better or worse than 
 the previous stock; if it is a little better, it will have an 
 advantage over and tend to extirpate the latter in this 
 crush and struggle; and if it is a little worse, it will 
 itself be extirpated." (Lectures on Origin of Species, 
 p. 123.) 
 
 With this Herbert Spencer agrees : "From the remotest 
 part which science can fathom, up to the novelties of 
 yesterday, an essential trait of evolution had been the 
 transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogene- 
 ous. At the same time that evolution is a change from the 
 homogeneous to the heterogeneous, it is a change from the 
 indefinite to the definite. Along with an advancement 
 from simplicity to complexity there is an advance from 
 confusion to order." (First Principles, pp. 359, 362.) 
 
 Now no honest inquirer will charge me with overstat- 
 ing their definitions of the meaning of "Natural selection, 
 or survival of the fittest." They manufactured these terms 
 and have thus defined them. They must swallow their 
 own medicine, and gracefully submit to the results. Let 
 us see how stubborn facts fly in the face of natural selec- 
 tion as thus defined. Take their embryonic whale with its 
 supposed legs and teeth and look at it. They tell us that 
 the whale must have descended from some species of ani- 
 mals that had teeth and legs. Some quadruped that was 
 accustomed to frequent the marshes and rivers. This habit 
 of visiting the water became so inveterate that in time 
 it became amphibious and evoluted into an otter, a musk- 
 rat, an alligator, and finally into a hippopotamus, and then 
 into a whale "by slight successive variations." These 
 embryonic teeth and legs are the evidences of the whale's 
 descent. Gentlemen, I have not manufactured this ab- 
 surdity nor exaggerated it. It is one of the brilliant 
 assumptions of the Professor of Natural History of the 
 University of Jena, the very foremost evolutionist of to- 
 day. His name is Professor Hackel. Hear him. 
 
 "It is probable that the remarkable legion of whales 
 (Cetacea) originated out of hoofed animals which accus- 
 tomed themselves exclusively to an aquatic life, and 
 
286 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 thereby became transformed into the shape of a fish." 
 (History of Creation, Vol. II, p. 257.) 
 
 Does not that smell fishy? Now I put the question 
 to Darwin, Huxley, and Spencer, and to all their dis- 
 ciples, Which comprise the more perfect species in the 
 domain of the animal kingdom, hoofed animals or whales ? 
 Which is the more complex and perfect in organization? 
 What comes of the survival of the fittest if this theory 
 is true? How about the extinction and annihilation of 
 the older species? Are not the hoofed species still in 
 existence, and does not the rapid diminution of the whale 
 tribe indicate that their ancestors that had legs and teeth 
 are likely to survive them in the "struggle for existence ?" 
 Is this a clear case of the inferior succumbing to the su- 
 perior? or the very reverse? Are hoofed animals an 
 extinct race? Were these teeth and legs of the whales' 
 ancestors injurious to them, that they thus were aborted 
 and lost? But I must remind you that these eminent 
 scientists teach that it took hundreds of millions of years 
 to convert a hoofed animal into a whale, and then millions 
 more to convert the whale into a cow, a horse, or an elk, 
 and then spent some fifty millions or more years to evolve 
 them back into a whale from some hoofed species that 
 was "accustoming itself to an aquatic life" while browsing 
 about the swamps and rivers. You see that this case of 
 the whales originating from a superior species of animals 
 slaps "the survival of the fittest" squarely in the face. Is 
 this evolution towards perfection, or backwards ? Another 
 scathing fact is, that while this change of the fish, the 
 oldest vertebrate animal, into a hoofed animal, requiring 
 many millions of years, and then the conversion of the 
 hoofed animal back again into the whale, that not one of 
 these different species has been extirpated, as Darwin, 
 Huxley, and Spencer declare must take place, because 
 natural selection "acts only" for the preservation of what 
 is beneficial and profitable, and the expiration of what is 
 "injurious" and useless. The weaker and inferior in "the 
 struggle and crush" must become extinct. Has this been 
 done? Nothing of the kind has occurred; and these men 
 
EVOLUTION. 287 
 
 know it only too well. Paleontology and geology are a 
 standing proof of my assertion. The Plesiosaurus, the 
 Icthyosaurus, the Megatherius, and many other highly 
 organized animals have become extinct, while the Moneron 
 of Hackel, not larger than a pin's head, and the Ganoid 
 and other inferior species in countless millions, that are 
 millions of years older, survive the magnificent species. 
 Gentlemen, this embryonic leg and teeth business of the 
 whale is exploded by their own definition of "natural se- 
 lection," or "survival of the fittest," and it is a bald 
 assumption without well authenticated truth. We admit 
 there may be something there that slightly resembles teeth 
 and legs, but they are something else, as is evidenced when 
 they have developed. We doubt not but that the Creator 
 has put these things in the animal organism to serve some 
 valuable purpose not manifest to us, as the spleen and 
 other parts of the animal organization. Who knows the 
 use of the hard warts on the inside of a horse's legs? 
 Neither Darwin nor Huxley, I venture. This theory of 
 aborted legs and teeth is a preposterous piece of super- 
 stition a thousand times more improbable than that a 
 "great fish" swallowed Jonah; yea, if you should reverse 
 the Bible story and say that Jonah swallowed the whale, 
 it would be as probable as that the whale descended from 
 some hoofed animal that was browsing about the estuaries 
 of the ocean and turned into a whale. About twelve years 
 ago I was traveling on horseback on the California coast 
 of the Pacific. I saw a huge monster of a fish lying on 
 the beach quivering in death. I measured it, and found 
 that it was twenty-six feet in length, and when lying on 
 its side was nearly four feet in height. It had a mouth 
 large enough to take in a yearling calf. It was a whale 
 shark. It had capacity to have taken in Charles Darwin, 
 Professors Huxley and Hackel, and room to spare. This 
 fish abounds in the Mediterranean Sea, where Jonah is 
 said to have been taken by a "great fish." Which think 
 you is the more plausible and probable story, that a hoofed 
 animal accustoming itself to an aquatic life one day turned 
 into a whale? or that a fish such as I saw swallowed 
 
288 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 Jonah? This is a fair case of comparative probabilities. 
 The difficulties of Infidelity and Atheism say that Jonah 
 swallowed . the whale. Do n't you see that an ounce of 
 conjecture, coming from these scientists, weighs more 
 with some people than a ton of well-established facts com- 
 ing from Moses? These industrious naturalists are hunt- 
 ing for legs and upper teeth to prove man's descent from 
 fishes and monkeys, and they have discovered something 
 that resembles teeth and legs in a whale and the boa con- 
 strictor. I do not question it, but deny that this is proof 
 demonstrative that whales are descended from animals 
 having legs and teeth; and this is the question at issue. 
 A man like Professor Hackel, who in some of his elab- 
 orate plates represents the tortoise having a larger head 
 than the child (I do not misrepresent him), is not to be 
 relied on as a truthful microscopist. If he magnifies the 
 tortoise's head and minifies the human head, he would be 
 quite likely to exaggerate these embryo legs and teeth of 
 the whale. Honestly ! Professor Huxley also in his New 
 York lecture represented in elaborate plates the orohippus 
 as large as the common horse, which is not larger than 
 the common fox. But we must give a moment's attention 
 to the absence of upper teeth in cows, and the presence of 
 these teeth in the upper jaw of the unborn calf, or we will 
 be charged with evading one of their strongest proofs for 
 the descent of man from the fish and monkey. But the in- 
 superable difficulty in this pungent fact of Charles Darwin 
 is, that it completely upsets his pet definitions and prin- 
 ciples of evolution, and these, as you have seen, are essen- 
 tial to his theory. I will show just where this occurs. 
 You will remember in the ample quotations from him 
 given above that he insists "that natural selection acts 
 solely and exclusively for and by the preservation and 
 accumulation of variations that are beneficial and profit- 
 able to the preserved being." But upper teeth in the cow 
 would be exceedingly beneficial and profitable in cropping 
 grass and twigs. We see this increased advantage in the 
 horse tribe. Many a cow brute has lost her life for want 
 of them when tender grass was scarce, and she was called 
 
EVOLUTION. 289 
 
 on to live on hard twigs. But a more fatal defect in his 
 theory about the absence of upper teeth in the bovine 
 species is, that constant use of any organ tends to its per- 
 fection and permanency, and disuse destroys and does 
 away with organs. Now the progenitors of the cow, I 
 mean the species from which they came into being, must 
 have had upper teeth, or the theory falls to the ground; 
 and if they had upper teeth, they must have been necessary 
 to them in the very nature of the case. They must have 
 used them habitually, and if habitually they must have be- 
 come more perfect and permanent by the universal law of 
 use. If so, will these naturalists explain how they lost 
 their teeth till some one of the tribe contracted the habit 
 of living without upper teeth, and then transmitted this 
 toothless front upper jaw to the present race of cattle? 
 This whole upper jaw argument overthrows this general 
 law, that use tends to the perfection and permanency of 
 any needful organ. It will be readily conceded by all 
 naturalists that front upper teeth in cows would greatly 
 facilitate the cropping of grass and twigs that are often 
 necessary to life. If natural selection preserves only the 
 beneficial and profitable, as Darwin insists, will evolu- 
 tionists please account for the absence of these upper 
 teeth, and also explain what advantage there is of the 
 hump on the camel's back, or the bushy tail to the fox, or 
 the enormous fat tail of the wild mountain sheep weighing 
 twenty and thirty pounds, or the immense horns of the elk 
 as he drives through the forest from his pursuers? I 
 think the Creator had good reason for creating cows with- 
 out front upper teeth, and the camel with his hump, and 
 so forth, whether we understand it or not; but evolution- 
 ists of the agnostic and atheistic school like Hackel, Hux- 
 ley, and Darwin, cut themselves off from this reserved 
 right by their own definitions of "natural selection" or 
 "survival of the fittest." Eyeless fishes and rats evidently 
 became such by a life in some rayless cavern, as in the 
 Mammoth Cave in Kentucky. Fowls that cease to use 
 their wings, as in forced domestication, become practically 
 useless as flyers, which is a clear perversion of the Cre- 
 19 
 
290 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 ator's law, that use strengthens and perfects any useful 
 organ and insures its permanency. You might about as 
 well undertake to overthrow the law of gravitation, or the 
 law of cause and effect, as this law of use tending to the 
 perfection and permanency of an organ. How can Mr. 
 Darwin explain this fact in his theory that the cow did not 
 lose her upper molar teeth as well as her incisors? A 
 brief account of the facts of crossing different species, so 
 much relied on by Mr. Darwin to prove the descent of 
 man, deserves a passing notice. Of course we can not, 
 for want of time, give an exhaustive treatment of a very 
 broad subject, much of which would not be proper before 
 a mixed audience. The claim that breeders have produced 
 distinct species of animals by crossing is in conflict with 
 natural selection. It is freely granted that by wise care 
 species may be greatly modified and improved by cross- 
 ing; but that they have produced a new and really dis- 
 tinct species is exceedingly doubtful and improbable. We 
 mean a species as distinct as the dog and the hog, or as a 
 cow and a horse. A fox and dog may be crossed; so a 
 horse and a Jack, but these evidently belong to the genus 
 dog and horse. Mr. Darwin, on the subject of natural 
 selection in crossing different species, says: "Any occa- 
 sional deviation of structure such as a monstrosity would 
 be a rare event, and if at first preserved it would generally 
 be lost by subsequent intercrossing with ordinary individ- 
 uals." (Origin of Species, p. 71.) "Monstrosities can not 
 be separated by any distinct line from slight variations." 
 (Origin of Species, p. 6.) Here is a clear concession that 
 monstrosities and hybrids are not the offspring of natural 
 selection, but of forced and unnatural conditions, and will 
 soon destroy themselves. The Creator has placed a com- 
 plete barrier to the creation of one species from another, 
 and yet in the face of this admission Darwin persists in 
 showing that careful crossing by experts renders it prob- 
 able, if not possible, to produce new and distinct species. 
 Thus they are constantly contradicting themselves. The 
 only case of an apparent successful attempt to create a 
 new species is seen in the mule; but nature stubbornly in 
 
EVOLUTION. 291 
 
 this instance resists further efforts, which is a potent argu- 
 ment that an essentially distinct and new species can never 
 be produced by forced breeding, much less by natural 
 selection. This absolute fact is an insurmountable argu- 
 ment against evolution as here taught. The sterility of 
 hybrids is God's standing monument that He created each 
 species to transmit its own and no other kind. Some one 
 has said: "You may insult nature once, but not a second 
 time." An acorn can never be tortured to produce an 
 apple-tree; nor a cucumber a potato. So the law in the 
 animal kingdom is inflexible and invariable, except in 
 simple variations of the same species. 
 
 There are unquestionably many mysterious facts in 
 heredity that may freely be admitted, and wonderful facts 
 too; but the question is, does Darwin's theory account for 
 these more rationally than some other hypothesis? Dar- 
 win attributes the inherited physical qualities and pecu- 
 liarities to natural selection, or wholly to physical causes 
 by transmissions through the blood. In fact, this is the 
 generally accepted view. Such expressions as "blood will 
 tell" and "a chip off the old block" are supposed to imply 
 that physical qualities are about all that are transmitted. 
 But this view is being seriously questioned by eminent 
 physiologists and metaphysicians of our day. It is a well 
 established fact, that the corporeal constitution of man is 
 totally changed every seven years, and some more recent 
 physiologists hold that it is entirely changed in one year. 
 If this is so, then physical qualities possessed by ancestors 
 can not be thus transmitted. Professor Huxley's testi- 
 mony ought to pass current among my evolution friends. 
 He says : "So constant and universal is this absorption and 
 waste and reproduction, that it may be said with perfect 
 certainty that there is left in no one of our bodies at the 
 present moment a millionth part of the matter of which 
 they were originally formed." (Lectures on Origin of 
 Species, p. 28.) Dr. Dunglison, a high authority, speaks 
 on this point thus : "The human body from the moment 
 of its formation to the cessation of existence is under- 
 going constant decay and renovation, decomposition and 
 
292 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 composition, so that at no two periods can it be said to 
 have exactly the same constituents. . . . Setting aside 
 the erroneous pathological notions, that assign to the blood 
 what properly belongs to cell life in the system of nu- 
 trition, how can we suppose a taint to continue for years, 
 or even for entire generations, in a fluid which is per- 
 petually undergoing mutation, and at any distant interval 
 can not be presumed to have one of its quondam particles 
 remaining." (Human Physiology, pp. 73, 450.) 
 
 These views are a flat contradiction of Darwin's phy- 
 sical transmissions. The authorities holding that man's 
 corporeal organization undergoes an entire change at least 
 once in seven years could be indefinitely multiplied. If 
 this is a well demonstrated truth, we will be compelled 
 to change our theory, that physical qualities and character- 
 istics are inherited. Mind or mental qualities are the im- 
 portant things that are transmitted, or rather that modify 
 the physical peculiarities. Wilford Hall, one of the acutest 
 minds since the days of Bishop Butler, holds that mind or 
 soul is a real entity, or organized something as real as 
 gravitation or electricity. One is organized spirit, the 
 other organized matter; one corporeal, the other incor- 
 poreal. Mind is a real entity, and is the greatest force in 
 the universe. This is a well established fact, as we look 
 at the reign of mind over matter. If there is any "sur- 
 vival of the fittest," you will find it in the realm of mind, 
 and not of matter. I need not undertake to rehearse the 
 triumphs of mind over matter in this nineteenth century 
 in this presence. 
 
 Its place in the great question of heredity is being well 
 established, and accounts for a larger class of mysterious 
 facts of inherited characteristics, than the so-called phys- 
 ical inheritance held by materialists of the Hackel and 
 Darwin schools. Mind has more to do in fixing character 
 tenfold than physical peculiarities. Let any one read with 
 care the account of Jacob's experience with the cattle of 
 his Uncle Laban, in putting "peeled rods" in the "water- 
 troughs," and the results following, and you will have a 
 significant proof of the influence of the mind on this primal 
 
EVOLUTION. 293 
 
 question of inheritance. I may not go farther into par- 
 ticulars to account for this recent view as explanatory of 
 more of these facts of heredity than any physical theory 
 extant. I therefore assert, without fear of successful con- 
 tradiction, that all the reliable facts of historic and pre- 
 historic times are palpably against Agnostic and Athe- 
 istic evolution. It is well settled by geologic science, that 
 the remains of the extinct races of animals and men are 
 as perfect in organization and size as are those of present 
 generations. There has nothing occurred in historic times 
 to prove the progress of evolution in animal organizations, 
 either in size, beneficial perfection of structure, or change 
 of species. It must of necessity follow, if evolution means 
 progress towards perfection, change of physical structure, 
 conversions into new species and tribes, and the utter ex- 
 tinction of the older forms and weaker classes in "the 
 struggle for existence," as these gentlemen absolutely 
 claim, that we would see animals in all stages of change 
 and progress. There would be some hoofed animals just 
 passing into whales and boa constrictors, fishes into dogs, 
 horses and monkeys just dropping their tails and emerg- 
 ing into manhood. This is precisely the ground taken by 
 Professor Agassiz, the foremost naturalist in America and 
 the peer of any European naturalist. This state of facts 
 ought to be present and manifest on the supposition that 
 the evolution theory has any foundation in fact. But as 
 nothing of the kind has ever been seen — for if any one 
 had ever discovered it these industrious naturalists, Dar- 
 win, Hackel, and Huxley, would not have been slow to 
 confront their opponents with it ere this — there is not 
 the slightest probability of its truth. It is a most improb- 
 able probability. Were it not for the regard I have for 
 these men in other respects, I would be tempted to say 
 that the theory as they hold and teach it is not respectable 
 nonsense. 
 
 On this foremost question as Darwin makes it of 
 heredity, I desire to invite attention to the subject of sex, 
 as it has an important bearing on evolution as taught by 
 these gentlemen. Sex is a universal and interesting fact, 
 
294 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 and one of far-reaching consequences and vast issues in 
 this world of ours. Sex is either the result of a specific 
 act of creation by a Supreme Being, or is the result of 
 natural selection. It must have had an adequate cause, 
 or is the result of chance or blind law "working without 
 a purpose," as Professor Hackel confidently asserts and 
 believes. The equality of the sexes as to numbers is one 
 of the great marvels of the world. The male sex is sup- 
 posed to outnumber the female somewhat. Great and 
 thoughtful minds account for this excess of the stronger 
 sex on the grounds of males being more exposed to calam- 
 ity and death than females, as in the case of wars, etc. 
 Now the point we make is this, natural selection utterly 
 fails to account for the existence and distribution of the 
 sexes. Suppose on the theory of natural selection, that 
 the male sex came into being first, then the inquiry con- 
 fronts Mr. Darwin and his disciples, Whence came the 
 female? What was there to select from? Or if you sup- 
 pose that the female was first created, Whence came the 
 male? What possible chance was there for natural selec- 
 tion to act ? It could not operate on one single individual 
 or sex. That individual or sex could not give what it did 
 not possess, which would be a palpable absurdity. Noth- 
 ing short of a superintending Providence can rationally 
 account for the existence and distribution of the sexes 
 as we find them. To employ a phrase we have already 
 used of Professor Huxley's, it is safe to say that this 
 single question of sex in the animate creation "completely 
 shatters" the doctrine of natural selection, which is the 
 foundation principle of the Darwinian theory. The Mo- 
 saic account of the creation beautifully and philosophically 
 accounts for the existence and reason of the two sexes. 
 It says, "God made them male and female." All the living 
 facts of the world harmonize most exactly with the Bible 
 account of the creation, and the Darwinian theory is at 
 utter variance with most of the facts of historic and pre- 
 historic times. Geology is against Mr. Darwin, and all 
 natural history or zoology is against him. His hypothesis 
 is based on the most slender probabilities, as we have 
 
EVOLUTION. 295 
 
 shown again and again in these lectures. Professor 
 George Mivart styles it "Darwin's brilliant fallacy." I 
 reserve for my final lecture of this course the concessions 
 of the leading evolutionists and some account of their re- 
 ligious opinions as having a bearing on evolution. I am 
 highly gratified with the large and candid hearing you 
 citizens of Spokane Falls have given this series of lec- 
 tures. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Concessions of Evolutionists and Their Religious 
 
 Opinions. 
 
 One of three things is true in regard to the life of this 
 world: (1) Either all living beings came into existence 
 by spontaneous generation from inorganic matter; or 
 (2) By natural selection; or (3) By God's creative act. 
 The first is the theory of Hackel and Huxley, the second 
 of Darwin, and the third that of Moses. 
 
 Concessions made by the advocates of any theory carry 
 great weight with them, whether the concessions are 
 forced from them, or are inadvertently or honestly made. 
 With these preliminary statements, I invite your thought- 
 ful attention to a number of these significant concessions 
 of the leading evolutionists of this age. 
 
 Professor Tyndall says (Fragments of Science, p. 
 166) : "Those who hold the doctrine of evolution are by 
 no means ignorant of the uncertainty of their data, and 
 they yield no more than a provisional assent." This is an 
 important admission — their "data" is "uncertain." They 
 do not know whether their supposed facts are true or not. 
 Professor Huxley says (Brit. Encyclopedia, Ed. 1876, Art. 
 Biology, p. 689) : "If the hypothesis of evolution is true, 
 living matter must have arisen from not living matter, 
 for by the hypothesis the condition of the globe was at one 
 time such that living matter could not have existed in 
 it, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous 
 state." 
 
 You will remember that both Huxley and Hackel are 
 the strong supporters of the Nebular hypothesis, which 
 
296 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 holds that the worlds were once in a gaseous state, and as 
 here conceded incompatible with the idea of life. But 
 this eminent philosopher admits that "living matter" then 
 "must have arisen from not living matter," which is ab- 
 surd, or the same thing as asserting that something came 
 from nothing. 
 
 Huxley further concedes (Brit. Encyclopedia, Ed. 1876, 
 Art. Biology, p. 689) : "At the present moment there is 
 not the shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abio- 
 genesis (spontaneous generation) does take place, or has 
 taken place, within the period during which the existence 
 of the globe is recorded." And Hackel concedes that 
 spontaneous generation is not possible "now," and Huxley 
 that it never took place within the period during which 
 the existence of the globe is recorded; therefore this view 
 of evolution stands or falls with the establishment, that 
 life is the result of "spontaneous generation." Huxley 
 further says that "the present state of knowledge fur- 
 nishes us with no link between the living and the not liv- 
 ing." This confirms the remark of Tyndall, that evolu- 
 tionists "are not ignorant of the uncertainty of their data." 
 Thus ends the theory of spontaneous generation held by 
 Hackel and Huxley. It is in one respect like the nebular 
 hypothesis, it is in a gaseous state and hence without life. 
 We now come to the Darwinian theory, or natural selec- 
 tion. It is conceded that if hybrids are sterile, natural 
 selection breaks down. That is, if hybrids are sterile 
 natural selection is incapable of originating new species. 
 In the present state of knowledge among breeders the 
 sterility of hybrids is an admitted fact. You ask, Who 
 makes the concession? Professor Kolliker of Germany, 
 and one of the greatest living embryologists, and also Pro- 
 fessor Huxley himself. Kolliker says : "Great weight must 
 be attached to the objection brought forward by Huxley, 
 otherwise a warm supporter of Darwin's hypothesis, that 
 we know of no varieties which are sterile with one an- 
 other, as is the rule among sharply distinguished animal 
 forms. If Darwin is right, it must be demonstrated that 
 forms may be produced by selection, which like the present 
 
EVOLUTION. 297 
 
 sharply distinguished animal forms are infertile when 
 coupled with one another, and this has not been done." 
 
 The purport of this statement of Kolliker is this: 
 Breeders have never succeeded in producing two other 
 distinct species from the same stock, so different that their 
 intercourse with one another will produce sterile hybrids. 
 He positively affirms that "this has never been done." In 
 reply to this allusion Huxley says : "The weight of this 
 objection is obvious; but our ignorance of the conditions 
 of fertility and sterility, and the want of careful experi- 
 ments extending over a long series of years and the 
 strange anomalies presented by cross fertilization of many 
 plants, should all, as Mr. Darwin has urged, be taken into 
 account in considering it." This is a very weak reply to 
 a concession he had already made. "The weight of the 
 objection is obvious;" but now our ignorance of the con- 
 ditions of fertility and sterility is a sufficient answer to 
 the objection. Now this admission of "ignorance of the 
 conditions of fertility and sterility" is not much of a com- 
 pliment to the pretensions of Darwin and others, who 
 claim so much for crossing to account for the origin of 
 new species. But Huxley here says, "The want of careful 
 experiments extending over a long series of years should 
 be taken into account in considering it." How long a 
 series of years does he want? We have had nearly six 
 thousand years of actual experiment that we know of. 
 And for the last twenty-five years or more such men as 
 Darwin and Huxley have been taxing all their ingenuity to 
 produce new species by crossing, and have also failed. 
 If nothing has occurred in the last six thousand years to 
 overthrow this serious objection to the theory, it is not 
 likely that a hundred thousand or a million of years would. 
 But Hackel says, "Some hybrids are not sterile," and 
 Joseph Cook says, "That five hundred other authorities 
 and all the proverbs of breeders assert that hybrids are 
 sterile." Whose testimony are we to take, HackePs or the 
 five hundred equally competent authorities? It is further 
 conceded that natural selection is limited in its operations 
 to the tribe or philum that is to be improved. Who makes 
 
298 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 this concession? Professor Hackel, and it is one of the 
 most valuable of all the concessions made by evolutionists. 
 He says (History of Creation, Vol. I, p. 250) : "There 
 appears, indeed, to be a limit given to the adaptability (or 
 transmutation) of every organism by the type of its tribe 
 or philum. Thus, for example, no vertebrate animals can 
 acquire the ventral nerve-cord of articulate animals, in- 
 stead of the characteristic spinal marrow of vertebrate 
 animals. However, within this hereditary primary form, 
 within this inalienable type, the degree of adaptability is 
 unlimited." That is, the progress and change are limited 
 to the tribe or philum to which the individuals belong; 
 therefore you can not by natural selection or forced do- 
 mestication change a vertebrate to an articulate, a ganoid 
 to a mollusk, an oyster to a trout, nor a rat into a lobster ; 
 nay, you can not change one vertebrate into another verte- 
 brate, as a hog into a cow. The limit is determined by 
 the type or tribe, and Hackel says the type is "inalien- 
 able," so that the concession is forced from them, that a 
 really distinct species can never be produced by natural 
 selection or forced breeding. Again, it is conceded that 
 most naturalists of this age give up the attempt to account 
 for the origin of life without miraculous interposition on 
 the part of God. Who makes this concession? Ernst 
 Hackel. I quote from his "History of Creation" (Vol. I, 
 p. 327) : "Most naturalists even at the present day are 
 inclined to give up the attempt at natural explanation 'of 
 the origin of life,' and take refuge in the miracle of incon- 
 ceivable creation." After this admission, let no man over- 
 flowing with "philosophical culture" flaunt the statement 
 in your face, as has been done recently in this city, that all 
 the culture and science favors the Darwinian theory or 
 that of Professor Hackel. Mark, he says, "Most of the 
 naturalists" are against it. Mivart is against it, Dana is 
 against it, Thomas Carlisle was against it, Gladstone is 
 against it; Professor Henry Drummond, a leading scien- 
 tist, is against it; Joseph Cook is against it, William Cul- 
 len Bryant was against it. He says, "It would be a much 
 easier task to prove that monkeys are degenerate men, than 
 
EVOLUTION. 299 
 
 to prove that men are cultivated monkeys." Wilford Hall 
 is against it, who has devoted thirty years to the study 
 of science and philosophy, and has done more to overthrow 
 modern evolution than any living man. He is to this age 
 of infidelity what Bishop Butler was to a past age. Last 
 but not least, Professor Aggasiz was against it with all 
 his great soul and intellect. Just before his death he had 
 planned to make an exhaustive reply from a geologic and 
 zoologic standpoint to Darwinianism, and so announced it 
 through the Atlantic Monthly in the last article he ever 
 printed. He had thrown down the gauntlet before evolu- 
 tion, but before he could execute his cherished purpose 
 death ensued. This was a great loss to the scientific and 
 religious world, for the reason that a reply from one of 
 the first naturalists of the world and modern times would 
 have greater weight, though not more able than one from 
 a purely religious standpoint. It would have been one 
 naturalist pitted against another. It would have been 
 "Greek meeting Greek." A clergyman meets this question 
 at some disadvantage, simply because he is a clergyman. 
 But there are many clergymen who have given years of 
 study to science — such men as Joseph Cook, of Boston; 
 Professor Henry Drummond, Wilford Hall, and many 
 others — that they might the better meet atheistic scien- 
 tists on their own ground. This they have done in a mas- 
 terly manner, and they speak and write with authority. 
 Some people have an idea that a minister of the Gospel 
 has no business to know anything but theology; but min- 
 isters of this age are "intermeddling with all knowledge," 
 because infidels force them to. To that extent infidels 
 are valuable. While it is true that clergymen are at some 
 disadvantage in a discussion like this, yet it is equally true 
 that those who addict themselves exclusively to science are 
 at an equal or greater disadvantage in discussing subjects 
 in which theology plays so important a part, as it does of 
 necessity in this question of evolution. 
 
 But once more Hackel concedes that man's so-called 
 descent from the monkey is a question of speculation, and 
 not of observation or experiment. That is, it is simply 
 
300 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 deductive, and not inductive. The inductive is the scien- 
 tific method, and the deductive is the speculative method. 
 Hackel says : "The process of deduction is not based upon 
 any direct experience. Induction is a logical system of 
 forming conclusions from the special to the general. . . . 
 Thus the theory of descent is, without doubt, a great in- 
 ductive law, experimentally based upon all biological expe- 
 rience. The theory, on the other hand, which asserts that 
 man has developed out of lower, and in the first place out 
 of apelike, mammals is a deductive law, inseparably con- 
 nected with the general inductive law." (History of 
 Creation, Vol. II, p. 357.) Thus you see from Hackel's 
 admission that man's descent from the ape is a simple 
 question of speculation, and not of observation or expe- 
 rience. Occasionally deductive conclusions from good cir- 
 cumstantial facts are admissible. For example, the gen- 
 eral law of gravitation is so well established, that if a 
 new planet were discovered we would be justified in con- 
 cluding that it came under this general law. But the 
 Copernican system has been proved by the strictest induc- 
 tion. You predict that an eclipse will take place at a cer- 
 tain minute of the day, and so it does; so you infer that 
 astronomers know something of the laws governing the 
 heavenly bodies. Now if Messrs. Hackel and Darwin will 
 first prove evolution or the descent of man by the same 
 rule they do the Copernican system of the universe, we 
 will allow them to fill up some of the gaps by deduction, as 
 in the case of the discovery of a new planet. That is, if 
 they can by select breeding produce two distinct species 
 from the same stock so widely different that their cross- 
 ing with one another will produce sterile hybrids, then 
 they may be allowed to fill the gaps by deduction ; but not 
 till this is done. Again, evolutionists concede that natural 
 selection can not take sudden leaps. But we find by the 
 unmistakable facts of geology that there are many missing 
 links between the ape and man, forming an immense gap 
 or leap. Darwin in his "Descent of Man" (1871) says: 
 "Natural selection can act only by taking advantage of 
 slight successive variations; it can never take a leap, but 
 
EVOLUTION. 301 
 
 must advance by short and slow stages. If it could be 
 demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could 
 not possibly have been formed by numerous successive 
 slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break 
 down." (Origin of Species, 1859.) Well, here is the 
 demonstration of a complex organ being formed by one 
 vast leap, if man descended from the monkey. Between 
 man and the monkey there are many missing links, or 
 immense gaps. Forty years and more have been assidu- 
 ously employed by naturalists and geologists to discover 
 these missing links and fill these gaps, but no trace of them 
 is to be found. Professor Dana, probably the greatest 
 living geologist, says this about it: "No remains of fossil 
 man bear evidence to less perfect erectness of structure 
 than in civilized man, or to any nearer approach to the 
 man ape in essential characteristics. This is the more 
 extraordinary in view of the fact that from the lowest 
 limits in existing man there are all possible gradations 
 up to the highest, while below that limit there is an abrupt 
 fall (or leap) to the ape level, in which the cubic capacity 
 of the brain is one-half less. If the links ever existed, 
 their annihiliation without trace is so extremely improb- 
 able that it may be pronounced impossible. Until some 
 are found science can not assert that they ever existed." 
 And Darwin admitted "that the absence of these links is 
 amazing !" Of course it is to a man who is claiming de- 
 scent from the ape. This is a demonstration as clear as 
 that two and two make four, that there is a vast gap be- 
 tween the man and the ape, and natural selection can 
 never bridge the chasm; consequently his theory does 
 "absolutely break down." It is conceded also that if any 
 living creature has organs or peculiarities that are of no 
 use "in the struggle for existence," the theory of "natural 
 selection must break down," as "natural selection acts 
 only for the preservation of what is beneficial and profit- 
 able, and the extirpation of what is injurious" or "useless." 
 These are Darwin's emphatic and oft-repeated statements. 
 The brain of the most inferior man is double the capacity 
 of the ape, and of consequence is double the size needed 
 
302 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 in the struggle for existence. In other words, he ought 
 to be able to cope with the ape, his nearest relative, with 
 as small a brain if he had only been as well protected 
 with hair as the ape. This increase of brain did not add 
 anything to his warmth. And if "he lived on roots" "in 
 his primeval state," he could have done much better in 
 his prone than in his erect position. "The struggle" would 
 have been less. And as he needed to climb trees for much 
 of his living, his aborted tail was a great loss to him, for 
 monkeys make singular use of their tails in climbing. If 
 the ape, chimpanzee, and orang-outang, being tailless and 
 belonging to the monkey tribe, do not need tails "in the 
 struggle for existence," then Darwin's theory signally 
 breaks down in the opposite direction; for if these can 
 get along without tails, then they are not necessary to the 
 monkeys that have them, for he affirms that if you can find 
 any organ that is of no use "in the struggle for existence," 
 then his "theory must break down." The bushy tail of 
 the fox, the camel's hump, the elk's enormous and un- 
 wieldy horns, the enormous fatty tail of the mountain- 
 sheep, and the absence of upper teeth in cows, and the de- 
 fenseless condition of little children, having neither the 
 instinct nor covering of the common pup, are clear ex- 
 amples. But I now am prepared to show that Darwin 
 concedes that he attached too much importance to natural 
 selection, or survival of the fittest. In his "Descent of 
 Man" (Vol. I, p. 152) he says: "I now admit, after read- 
 ing Nageli on plants, and the remarks by various authors 
 with respect to animals, that in the earlier editions of my 
 'Origin of Species' I probably attributed too much to the 
 action of natural selection, or survival of the fittest. I 
 had not formerly sufficiently considered the existence of 
 structures which appear to be, as far as we can judge, 
 neither beneficial nor injurious, and this I believe to be 
 one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my 
 works." Also "Descent of Man" (Vol. II, p. 38) he says: 
 "No doubt man, as well as every other animal, presents 
 structures which, as far as we can judge with our little 
 knowledge, are not now of any service to him, nor have 
 
EVOLUTION. 303 
 
 been so during any former period of his existence, either 
 in his relation to his general conditions of life or of one 
 sex to the other. Such structures can not be accounted 
 for by any form of selection, or by the inherited effects 
 of the use or disuse of parts." This admission is fatal to 
 the whole theory of evolution as taught by Charles Dar- 
 win. Natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, is 
 cardinal in his hypothesis. It is to evolution what the 
 foundation is to the building. Sap that, and the whole 
 structure falls. While Darwin felt himself compelled to 
 make this concession, he uses quite a little strategy in try- 
 ing to escape the consequences of the admission by this 
 adroit remark, "There are structures which appear, so far 
 as we can judge, that are neither beneficial nor injurious" 
 to the being having them. While he seems to be candid 
 in the admission "that he had not formerly sufficiently 
 considered" these structures, yet before he gets through 
 with the concession he completely nullifies it by asserting 
 that these structures "are neither beneficial nor injurious." 
 This is simply absurd. A thing must be either beneficial 
 or injurious. It is of necessity one or the other. Darwin 
 intended to make an honest concession, or he did not. 
 When such philosophers as Nageli and other eminent men 
 presented facts that seriously damaged his theory, he was 
 reluctantly compelled to admit that in his "Origin of 
 Species" he had "probably attributed too much to natural 
 selection," and then makes the awkward attempt to re- 
 cover himself by saying that these structures were "neither 
 beneficial nor injurious." Professor St. George Mivart, 
 an eminent evolutionist of the Owen school, makes this 
 significant remark about the above concessions of Mr. 
 Darwin : "The hypothesis of natural selection originally 
 put forth as the origin of species has been really aban- 
 doned by Mr. Darwin himself, and is untenable. It is a 
 misleading positive term denoting negative effects, and 
 as made use of by those who would attribute to it the 
 origin of man is an irrational conception — a puerile hy- 
 pothesis." (Lessons from Nature.) Huxley speaks highly 
 of Mivart's philosophical ability. He (Mivart) thinks 
 
304 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 the term "survival of the fittest" misleading, and that 
 man's descent from the ape is a "puerile hypothesis." 
 This theory then, in the light of solid facts and Darwin's 
 concessions, has utterly collapsed. Joseph Cook says, in 
 view of Darwin's concessions, that "he is not a good Dar- 
 winian." Darwin concedes that the first or a few living 
 beings must have been the work of a specific creation by 
 God. This concession he makes in his earlier works, 
 which we have quoted again and again in these lectures. 
 This is about all Moses claims, one or two of each kind. 
 
 Darwin also concedes that on his theory, that it is im- 
 possible to account for the first origin of life, which he 
 calls "a hopeless inquiry." He says (Descent of Man, 
 p. 66) : "In what manner the mental powers were first 
 developed in the living organisms is as hopeless an inquiry 
 as how life itself first originated. These are problems 
 for the distant future, if they are ever to be solved by 
 man." How palpably inconsistent such talk after his 
 former admission of a necessary miraculous creation of 
 the "first few beings !" Darwin also concedes that his 
 former beilef was that of the distinct and specific creation 
 of species. He says (Ibid. p. 61) : "I was not, how- 
 ever, able to annul the influence of my former belief, 
 then almost universal, that each species had been pur- 
 posely created. 1 have at least, as I hope, done good serv- 
 ice in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate cre- 
 ations." Let it be remembered that several years had 
 intervened between the time of his "former belief" and 
 his later belief. It must have been, then, when he enter- 
 tained the "almost universal" belief of specific acts of the 
 creation of the species, that he admitted that "the first few 
 beings" must have been the result of miraculous power 
 and intelligent purpose, for he here explicitly declares 
 his change of belief, and hopes he has "done good service 
 in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." 
 
 The above quotations also clearly reveal the marked 
 evolution or change in Mr. Darwin's religious views, from 
 simple deism towards atheism, of which he is charged by 
 a number of his careful readers. In his earlier works, as 
 
BVOLUTION. 305 
 
 we have seen, he emphatically declares that the first "few 
 living beings" must have been the act of God. He as 
 emphatically declares in his later works, that to account 
 "how life first originated" is a "hopeless inquiry," and is 
 "a problem for the distant future to solve." When a deist, 
 or a simple theist, he hesitated not to say that the Creator 
 must have originated "the first few living beings;" but 
 when he became an Agnostic, or an Atheist, he tells you 
 that to account for life is as hopeless an inquiry as to tell 
 how "the mental powers were first developed in the lower 
 organisms," and every one can see the hoplessness of that 
 inquiry on his hypothesis. He rejoices that he has been 
 able to overthrow the dogma "of his early deism," of 
 "separate creations," and a great many intelligent people 
 of this age fail to see any good reason to rejoice over that. 
 You observe, then, that Mr. Darwin at his death stood 
 quite on the ground of Professor Hackel, of bald atheism, 
 and there is a broad gulf between deism and atheism. We 
 have been thus explicit in noting Mr. Darwin's change of 
 belief at this point, because it came up in this concession 
 of his, that you can not account "for the first origin of 
 life" on his theory, and because we will have to do with 
 his religious beliefs further on. Joseph Cook with great 
 care has discovered fifty-one concessions of evolutionists 
 of the different schools, and nearly every one is fatal to 
 the theory held by Hackel and Darwin. In the aggregate 
 they are overwhelming, and leave absolutely nothing in 
 the system that is vital. It is conceded by all, except 
 Huxley, that the entire theory is based on mere prob- 
 ability; it is speculative and not experimental. Thus I 
 have tried to fulfill my promise to overthrow evolution 
 with the chief weapons of its advocates. You will judge 
 of my success. I think it pertinent to spend a few minutes 
 at the close of these lectures in speaking of the religious 
 opinions of these leading scientists. I do so, because every 
 man's theories are liable to be colored by his religious be- 
 liefs. There is antecedently a strong presumption that 
 this is likely to be the case. Huxley, Tyndall, and Spencer 
 are Agnostics; Professor Hackel is an open and avowed 
 20 
 
3 o6 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 Atheist, and Darwin has also been called an Atheist, and 
 I think there are strong grounds for the charge. Thomas 
 Carlisle, who personally knew the Darwins, says : "I have 
 known three generations of the Darwins, grandfather, 
 father, and sons, atheists all. The brother of the present 
 famous naturalist, a quiet man, who lives not far from 
 here, told me that among his grandfather's effects he found 
 a seal engraven with this legend, 'Omnia ex conchis' 
 (everything from a clamshell). I saw the naturalist not 
 many months ago, and told him that I had read his 'Origin 
 of Species' and other books, and that he had by no means 
 satisfied me that men were descended from monkeys, but 
 he had gone far toward persuading me that he and his 
 so-called scientific brethren had brought the present gener- 
 ation of Englishmen very near to monkeys. A good sort 
 of a man is this Darwin, and well meaning, but with very 
 little intellect. Ah ! it is a sad and terrible thing to see 
 nigh a whole generation of men and women professing to 
 be cultivated looking around in a purblind fashion, and 
 finding no God in the universe. I suppose it is a reaction 
 from the reign of cant and hollow pretense, professing to 
 believe what in fact they do not believe. And this is what 
 we have got, all things from spawn, the gospel of dirt 
 the order of the day. The older I grow — and now I stand 
 on the brink of eternity — the more comes back to me the 
 sentence in the Catechism which I learned when a child, 
 and the fuller and deeper its meaning becomes, 'What is 
 the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him 
 forever.' No gospel of dirt, teaching that we are de- 
 scended from frogs, through monkeys, can ever set that 
 aside." (Extract from a letter published in Scotland.) 
 This is what a great and thoughtful man said as he stood 
 on the brink of eternity. Is it too much to say that the 
 two greatest works of Darwin "Origin of Species" and 
 "Descent of Man," and the two of Hackel, "Evolution of 
 Man" and "History of Creation," were written mainly in 
 the interest of Infidelity? I think very few will question 
 it, therefore, in studying these works this should be 
 taken into the account. But it may be said that Christians 
 
EVOLUTION. 307 
 
 are as likely to be biased as Infidels and Atheists. Very- 
 true ; but that does not affect the point I make, but rather 
 confirms it. These men have been strongly tempted to 
 employ arguments and assumptions that they would not 
 have done had it been simply a pure question of science. 
 They were after Moses, and they ransacked creation to 
 find resemblances that would throw discredit on the Bible 
 account of creation, and we challenge them to present one 
 solid demonstrated fact to prove that the different species 
 of living beings is the result of spontaneous generation 
 or of natural selection. Now I ask you to scan the titles 
 of these much lauded books: "Origin of Species," "De- 
 scent of Man," "Evolution of Man," "History of Cre- 
 ation," Think of it ! Who but Moses ever undertook to 
 give a history of creation till these gentlemen of the nine- 
 teenth century conceived the idea? Does their prox- 
 imity or remoteness to that event qualify them especially 
 for such an undertaking? The world for about forty-five 
 centuries was well satisfied with the Mosaic accounts. 
 Moses, a man of wide culture, and "learned in all the wis- 
 dom" of the most learned people in the world, lived forty- 
 five centuries nearer the creation than Charles Darwin 
 and Ernst Hackel, and had access to materials for such 
 a history that is not allowed these gentlemen. But some 
 of "the philosophical culture" of the last twenty-five or 
 thirty years have become dissatisfied with the Bible ac- 
 count, and have, as Carlisle told Darwin, resorted to the 
 "gospel of dirt" and "frog spawn," "sea ooze," and all 
 that kind of stuff to account for the descent of man. It 
 is not an uncommon thing for the skepticism of our day 
 to charge Christianity with superstition, especially in re- 
 gard to this question of creation; but I submit that the 
 legends of the darkest nations concerning the creation are 
 infinitely in advance of the "frog spawn" and "sea ooze" 
 theory in point of rationality, and the Mosaic account is 
 a million times more rational and dignified than either. 
 In conclusion, I make this point against modern evolution : 
 its moral tendency is most dangerous. It strikes a fatal 
 blow at man's accountability. The human mind is so 
 
3 o8 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 constituted that make men believe that they came into 
 being by chance, or by the operation of blind, unintelli- 
 gent law, as both Darwin and Hackel again and again 
 assert, and you thereby do away with the foundation of 
 moral responsibility. You convince me that I owe my 
 origin to frog spawn and to monkeys, and I immediately 
 infer that I am not more responsible than they. I am an 
 effect from an irresponsible cause, and the effect can not 
 be greater than the cause that produced it. This is the 
 almost inevitable tendency of this loose philosophy of 
 evolution, and it is to be seriously deprecated on that 
 account, if for no other. It is not only false, but danger- 
 ous ! When Thomas Paine submitted the manuscript of 
 his "Age of Reason" to Dr. Franklin for his opinion as to 
 the propriety of its publication, Franklin replied: "Mr. 
 Paine, do not unchain the tiger. If human nature is so 
 hard to control with all the moral restraints thrown about 
 it by Christianity, what would it be without them?" "I 
 think I speak advisedly, and charitably also, when I say 
 that the works referred to are the most dangerous books 
 that have appeared in a century. They are so because 
 of the prestige of their authors as great naturalists, and 
 because they do not avowedly profess to assail Christianity 
 as Mr. Paine and Mr. Ingersoll do. We know what to 
 expect from them; but the reader is not likely at first to 
 suspect Darwin, Hackel, and Huxley, while they profess 
 to be strictly dealing with science. But no cautious 
 reader competent to weigh arguments and facts can 
 long be ignorant of the main purpose of these books. 
 They are aimed at Moses — they are aimed at the 
 Bible. They had never appeared in their present form 
 but for the Mosaic account of the creation. I have been 
 charged in this city with "camping with Moses." I am 
 proud of his company. I am only sorry that I am not 
 more worthy of such companionship. Moses to-day is 
 camping in the serene heights of angelic beatitudes, and 
 I do not believe that his serene and cultured soul has been 
 in the least ruffled by the coarse personalities and shafts 
 hurled at him by infidels, agnostics, and atheists. I do 
 
EVOLUTION. 309 
 
 not suppose, from his high vantage ground, that he enter- 
 tains any fears that the utmost development of all true 
 science will ever seriously affect his theory of creation. 
 He can afford to await the verdict of the coming ages 
 for the perfect solution of all the facts of creation. Would 
 that we were as well assured as he. It would be greatly 
 better for the truth in its future conquests. I now thank 
 you for this patient hearing, hoping we all may learn 
 therefrom not to be too hasty in accepting every new phase 
 of so-called science, and that we may learn not to be too 
 nervous when atheistic scientists blow their horns of new 
 discoveries. When the smoke of battle clears away, as 
 it will, you will be able better to see what execution has 
 been done, if any. 
 
 "WOMEN IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS OF 
 THE CHURCH." 
 
 [A reply to Professor James Strong IX,. D., on the admission of 
 women to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 before the Ministerial Club, held in this city, under the leadership of 
 Bishop Vincent, D. D. Dr. Strong's opposition was so strong that the 
 majority of the club felt it ought to be answered at the time, and by a 
 vote I was requested to reply. Here follows the reply.] 
 
 I am in hearty sympathy with the great movement 
 now before the Church. I therefore have whatever ad- 
 vantage there is in this. My conviction is the result of 
 a careful examination of both sides of this question. I 
 propose to be candid, courteous, and manly in my treat- 
 ment of this living issue. I hope to meet my opponent's ar- 
 guments fairly, and not skip the difficulties raised by them. 
 
 Dr. Harrington has so calmly and clearly traversed 
 the Biblical and exegetical ground, that I need say but 
 little by way of Scripture authority for our position. Dr. 
 Strong tells us that she is "a 'helper, his assistant and 
 co-ordinate/ not his servant, nor his master." If she is 
 co-ordinate with Adam, she is of course of equal rank; 
 therefore neither his servant nor master, but his equal. 
 The word rendered "helper" occurs nineteen times in the 
 Bible — fourteen times to God, and twice to woman ; never 
 
310 STORY OF MY UFB. 
 
 once to a servant or a subordinate. In this fact there is 
 nothing in the Scriptures to warrant the idea of subordi- 
 nation and secondariness, that some of the exegetes are 
 reading into this word czer. I think the Doctor is liable 
 to this charge. We must not forget that the word "helper" 
 was applied to her before she lapsed from her sinless state. 
 After the Fall the Doctor tells us that she took a "second- 
 ary rank in matters of government and authority." If sec- 
 ondary, then it can not be co-ordinate, as the Doctor con- 
 ceded that it was before the Fall. Why this degradation 
 from co-ordinate to secondary rank ? We are told because 
 she "was first deceived" and is "the weaker vessel." 
 But how long was it before Adam did the same thing, and 
 as appears with less excuse? Was he less a sinner than 
 she? Is God a respecter of persons or of sexes? Now it 
 seems to me that such arguments hardly rise to the dig- 
 nity of respectability. What is the inference then? It is 
 this: that interpretation can not be relied on that makes 
 God a respecter of persons simply on the ground of the 
 distinction of sex. 
 
 But the Doctor, in the next sentence or two, tells us 
 that "her original rights were not taken away," but turned 
 "into another channel." How could this be, when he de- 
 clares that she took "a secondary rank in matters of au- 
 thority and government" after her lapse? If she was co- 
 ordinate before her fall, as he concedes she was, and sec- 
 ondary after, then her rights must have changed with her 
 rank. But I do not believe that you are warranted in 
 asserting that her rank was changed any more by the Fall 
 than was man's. I think the dual headship remains the 
 same as before the Fall, except that they suffered equally 
 by the moral catastrophe. 
 
 Dr. Strong makes this remarkable statement: "Noth- 
 ing new has taken place in the nature or history of woman 
 in herself or in the Church as such to require or justify 
 such a wide departure from all precedent, usage, and well- 
 established law." I think he is quite correct in saying 
 that "nothing new has taken place in the nature of woman 
 in herself as such ;" but there has been a most marked and 
 
WOMEN IN LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS. 311 
 
 radical change in the last fifty years as to the treatment 
 she has received at the hands of the Church. For cen- 
 turies her voice was not tolerated in the Church in pro- 
 miscuous assemblies. Now there is a pretty large liberty 
 granted her in this respect. And I submit that there was 
 enough in the history of the Church "to justify and re- 
 quire" a larger liberty than was allowed her both by 
 "precedent, usage, and well-established ecclesiastical law" 
 for several centuries last past. And Methodism has been 
 a most important factor in lifting woman out of her state 
 of vassalage and degradation. This is true history, 
 Doctor. 
 
 I am obliged to Dr. Strong for this truthful and frank 
 statement: "It can not be successfully denied . . . that 
 in every essential respect woman is the equal, the partner, 
 the coadjutor of man, that she is numerically even a larger 
 constituent in the Church, and certainly not a whit behind 
 her brother in piety and loyalty; that she possesses prac- 
 tical sagacity, indeed a quicker insight, a warmer affection, 
 and a more self-sacrificing devotion." 
 
 Woman with equal advantages is every way the equal 
 of man, except in physical strength. Now I lay down this 
 self-evident proposition: Whatever faculties and capa- 
 bilities the Creator has endowed His intelligent and moral 
 creatures with, He intended them to use. If the fish has 
 fins, they were given to swim with ; if the birds have wings, 
 they were to fly with. The question of sex does not enter 
 into the matter. And it is true that disuse may in time 
 destroy the faculty, as in the case of eyeless fishes and the 
 ostrich. Woman's mental and moral faculties are to be 
 used in every field when such faculties are adapted and 
 called for. This is the rational basis of this whole ques- 
 tion of woman's place in the world. And Dr. Harrington 
 has shown that the Bible has sufficiently recognized it in 
 the cases of Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and Anna in the 
 Old Testament, and in the New in the cases of the daugh- 
 ters of Philip, the prophecy of Joel, Priscilla, and Phoebe. 
 
 I regret some things that are so conspicuous in the 
 otherwise able article of Dr. Strong. These are such as 
 
312 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 reflect on the sincerity of those who differ from him, and 
 their ignorance of the subject and their inability to see 
 the consequences he and his friends see in it. I think the 
 the Doctor has hardly been courteous to his opponents. 
 Let me quote : 
 
 "Let men delight to bark and bite," etc. 
 
 The women who desire "to vote for a petticoat govern- 
 ment over a petticoat constituency," etc. "The whole 
 special pleading respecting women is an exhibition of 
 ignorance and uncritical exegesis." He hopes the laymen 
 and ministers will not "be so insane as to perpetrate" so 
 indecorous a thing as to admit woman into the General 
 Conference. "It is a manifest injustice to women to make 
 them cats'-paws for the mere aggrandizement of Church." 
 "The strongest objection to female legislation is, that it 
 degrades woman herself. It places her in an unfeminine 
 attitude, and that in a most conspicuous position. . . . 
 It lowers herself in dignity and grace, as surely as if she 
 assumed pantaloons or sported a moustache." "A public 
 woman \" "The very word is a synonym of infamy." 
 
 This leads me to remark that Dr. Strong and Dr. 
 Buckley and some other prominent men of the opposition 
 have again and again raised questions that are not rele- 
 vant to the issue before us. Such questions as the min- 
 istry, ordination of women, and the question of female 
 suffrage. I maintain these question are not in the issue 
 before us; it is simply shall women be admitted to the 
 General Conference as lay delegates? Dr. Strong will 
 tell you that he admitted this in the beginning of his paper. 
 True. But he went almost immediately and raised these 
 very questions and devoted the larger part of his discus- 
 sion to these irrelevant matters. But they insist that these 
 are logically involved in the main issue. This is especially 
 true of Drs. Strong and Buckley. Now if we do not meet 
 what they regard as their strongest objections, they charge 
 us with unfairness and as unable to meet their arguments. 
 But I promised in the outset that I would not skip the 
 difficulties raised by our brethren. I then accept the 
 
WOMEN IN LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS. 313 
 
 irrelevant challenge. When they ask me if I am in favor 
 of woman's preaching and ordination, I answer, Yes, if 
 God calls them to this work, and they have the endow- 
 ments of "gifts, grace, and usefulness." I do not believe 
 that sex is a barrier to the sacred office when I remember 
 Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, the daughters of Philip, Pris- 
 cilla, and Phcebe. Mr. Wesley was asked by Mrs. Fletcher 
 if he thought women should ever preach, and he replied 
 that if God assuredly called her he would not fight against 
 God, or something to that effect. Would you favor her 
 ordination? Certainly, if she is called of God. I do 
 not consider the mere laying on of hands as essential to 
 a call, or to real calling to the ministry. It imparts no 
 virtue or efficacy to the candidate. So far as propriety 
 goes, it is as appropriate in one case as in the other. 
 
 You ask me, "Are you in favor of female suffrage?" 
 I am decidedly in favor of it, both in Church and State. 
 I do not believe that the Creator ever intended sex as a 
 bar to suffrage. Is a woman qualified to cast an intelligent 
 ballot? Is she an American citizen? If she is, she is 
 entitled to vote on questions of highest interest to her. 
 I am an American, and believe with all my soul in the 
 American maxim, "No taxation without representation." 
 I believe in the natural right both of men and women 
 to vote. I believe among these natural rights are "life, 
 liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and the right of 
 franchise and representation are involved in these. The 
 effort to show that voting is not a natural right, but simply 
 accidental, is a fallacy; "a distinction without a differ- 
 ence." But the disfranchisement of woman because of 
 the distinction of sex is a flagrant injustice. The only 
 reason she can not vote is because she is a woman. Her 
 misfortune is her sex. She is an American citizen, with- 
 out the highest privilege of an American. She is Amer- 
 ican born, but worse off than an alien. Note her classifi- 
 cation ! There are six classes in this country that are 
 disfranchised: little children, idiots, criminals, most In- 
 dians, the Chinese, and the white women of America. 
 And these women are the best qualified citizens, if general 
 
3 i4 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 intelligence, loyalty, and virtue are to be counted in the 
 Government. Why are they denied the vote? Simply 
 because they are women. But you reply that most women 
 do not want to vote. A sufficient reply is, Many men do 
 not care to vote. But would you deny other men the 
 vote because many men do not care for it? If it is only 
 the right of a dozen that settles the question. There are 
 several millions of women who do want to vote, and it 
 is their just right. It is a flagrant inconsistency and in- 
 justice of a free government to disfranchise her women 
 citizens. We talk of our Government as a democracy, 
 as a Republic. Let us see. The present population of the 
 United States is about 65,000,000. Of these about 
 11,000,000 are voters. Not more than 6,000,000 vote at 
 ordinary elections; 54,000,000, or about four-fifths, have 
 no vote. As the women outnumber the men, there are 
 about 13,000,000 of suitable age and qualification to vote. 
 Of the 11,000,000 who vote, a large per cent can neither 
 read nor write; another large per cent can read and not 
 write, or can write their names and not read. These two 
 classes of voters are an easy prey to unprincipled dema- 
 gogues. And then there are 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 of liq- 
 uor manufacturers and sellers who completely control the 
 rest of the voters in the interest of the most gigantic evil 
 and curse that ever threatened the life and perpetuity of a 
 free Government. The 11,000,000 of women in this country 
 have no voice in the suppression of a curse that is damning 
 her sons and daughters, her brothers and fathers. Why? 
 Because the dominant parties prefer to listen to the whisky 
 element, rather than to her pitiful and ineffectual en- 
 treaties. She has no rights that they feel bound to respect. 
 Rev. Alfred Wheeler tells us that all the women have to 
 do is to ask for what they want, and they get it. Far 
 from it. The noble women who have waited on our 
 political conventions time and again and made respectful 
 request for help against the saloon curse have been rudely 
 snubbed, or their requests wholly disregarded. They have 
 no vote themselves and no representatives in our legis- 
 lative halls or Congress that care to represent them in that 
 
WOMEN IN LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS. 315 
 
 which is of the most vital interest to them. You talk of 
 the women being represented by their fathers and broth- 
 ers ! It is utterly untrue in any proper sense. I tell 
 you now and here that this country is more like an oli- 
 garchy than a democracy. It is governed at this hour, to 
 all intents and purposes, by less than 3,000,000 of men, 
 and they are the brewers and saloon men of America. 
 Do you wonder why I am in favor of woman's suffrage 
 in the light of these burning facts ? Who are the bitterest 
 opponents to-day of female suffrage? They are the saloon 
 men. Why? They know if the 11,000,000 of women in 
 this country had the ballot that their business would be 
 doomed in less than two years. I know and you know 
 how the great majority of the women would vote on that 
 question. I am decidedly in principle and policy or ex- 
 pediency in favor of the enfranchisement of women. 
 
 But our dear brethren mostly in the East fear the re- 
 sult of the vote on the women themselves. They will 
 unsex themselves. They will become rough and coarse 
 like men. I think these fears are groundless. We have 
 tried them here and in Wyoming. I never witnessed such 
 good behavior at the polls as when the women voted. 
 What is there in the mere act of going to a place of voting 
 and casting a simple slip of paper that could be consid- 
 ered coarse or indelicate? Your wives and daughters 
 daily go to the post-office and get the mail under 
 more unfavorable circumstances than at the polls. That 
 would be two or three times in a year, and the other is a 
 daily matter. Had I the time I could give you the best of 
 testimony from governors, judges of courts, and other 
 prominent men of the good behavior of the n^en and the 
 womanly delicacy of the women who have voted again 
 and again in Washington and Wyoming in the last few 
 years. 
 
 But if it is such a dangerous thing to female delicacy 
 and purity, why have you consented to submit this ques- 
 tion to a vote of the Church, when two-thirds of its mem- 
 bers are women? This is a whim in my opinion, but an 
 honest one. 
 
316 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 The enfranchisement of the Negro in this Nation has 
 done much to make him respectable among the politicians, 
 because they want his vote. If 11,000,000 of women 
 were enfranchised, a committee of intelligent women would 
 be treated with profound respect, and they could com- 
 mand the political conventions to pay some respect to their 
 rights and wishes, but now they have no influence because 
 they have no vote . 
 
 It has been insinuated again and again that those who 
 favor woman's admission to the General Conference are 
 in sympathy with anarchists, infidel free-lovers, and that 
 public life makes women indelicate. I resent the insinu- 
 ation, and declare that the women who represent the 
 Methodist Church in our Lay Electoral Conferences on 
 our missionary and temperance platforms are as pure and 
 delicate as any women in Methodism who never appeared 
 upon a platform. The women whom we have intrusted 
 with these official and public positions have acted with 
 great decorum and propriety, and have done their work 
 well and efficiently, and have never up to this time disap- 
 pointed us. We have no good grounds to assume that 
 they would if they should be admitted to that grave 
 body. 
 
 I call your attention to this statement of Dr. Strong: 
 "Now let it never be forgotten nor for a moment over- 
 looked that women voluntarily came into the Church 
 under this law of restriction, well known and universally 
 maintained. What right have they, or any men in their 
 behalf, to demand a fundamental change of this order and 
 economy?" Of course they came in voluntarily under 
 this restriction. But you ask, What right have they, or 
 any men in their behalf, to ask for a change of the Re- 
 strictive Rules? I modestly reply, The Right of Pe- 
 tition. The Constitution of the Methodist Church has 
 provided for a change in her fundamental rules. That is 
 what this vote contemplates. Does Dr. Strong claim in- 
 fallibility in the polity and government of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church ? You might be led to think so, when 
 he puts this question, "What right have the women or men 
 
WOMEN IN LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS. 317 
 
 to ask for this change?" He calls this change a revo- 
 lution. 
 
 But Dr. Strong makes a most surprising announcement 
 in the close of his debate. It is this: "Whenever the 
 majority of women desire admission to the General Con- 
 ference I would be in favor of granting their request 
 promptly and fully, but only out of courtesy or deference." 
 Then a few sentences on he says : "But mark now : when 
 the women walk in at the front door of the General Con- 
 ference I, if a member, would prefer to step out. I could 
 not endure to witness, much less be a party to such a 
 personal humiliation, and so flagrant a public scandal." 
 Remember, he first questions the right of the women or 
 their friends to change the order and economy of the 
 Church, because he says it is the "uniform prohibition of 
 nature, the Bible, and all Church history." 
 
 I can not think that our venerable brother could have 
 carefully weighed these words sufficiently when he wrote 
 them. He says if a majority of the women desired it, he 
 would promptly and fully vote for their admission out of 
 courtesy and deference, when he positively stated that he 
 conscientiously believes that "it is prohibited by the Word 
 of God, the dictates of nature, and against all wise history 
 and usage in the Church and State in all the past." If I 
 believed all that conscientiously, I could not vote for their 
 admission if they all desired it. But after voting for their 
 admission out of courtesy because they simply desired it, 
 it would be an unusual manifestation of courtesy "to step 
 out of the back door when they entered the front door" by 
 his vote. That would look rather more like revolution 
 than the women asking for admission in a constitutional 
 way, I submit. 
 
318 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 "The Higher Criticism " was treated very ably at the Columbia Dis- 
 trict Ministerial Association by Rev. W. S. Turner, and by request we 
 begin the publication of his paper this week. It will well repay the read- 
 ing. — Columbia Christian Advocate. 
 
 Brethren, I do not claim to be an adept in philology 
 and Bible introduction, but I claim to have common sense 
 and a little modesty. I profess to be able to read and 
 understand what the first scholars of the past and present 
 have to say about the genuineness and authenticity of the 
 books of the Bible. I know what the destructive critics 
 claim, and what the mediating critics teach; and I know 
 what the conservatives hold. I have learned that it is 
 safe to take what specialists say cum multis granis salts 
 (or with many grains of salt). They often lack in the 
 judicial qualifications to be safe guides. They are apt to 
 have some pet theories that they are anxious to establish, 
 and being specialists they are more likely to be narrow 
 and self-conceited than men who are not specialists. 
 They easily become hobbyists and enthusiasts. We have 
 noted examples of quackery in medicine. Some man pro- 
 fesses that he has made an important discovery, and 
 declares that it will absolutely cure every ailment known 
 to men. Henry George believes that he has solved all 
 the intricate questions of political economy. I have known 
 some professors in Greek and Latin, and some in mathe- 
 matics, who imagined that scarcely anything else was 
 worthy of attention outside their departments in college. 
 This is the conspicuous tendency and liability with spe- 
 cialists in any department of knowledge. The place of the 
 specialist, then, is not on the judicial bench, but on the 
 witness stand. I am in favor of specialists — their work 
 is very valuable in their fields, but they are not to pre- 
 sume to assert, as they often do, that thoughtful and 
 reading men are not allowed to question their facts, or 
 rather oftener their assumptions and conjectures. I be- 
 lieve to-day that we are warranted in the assertion that 
 there are nine assumptions for every well-established fact 
 that the higher critics have brought against the Bible 
 
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 319 
 
 record; especially is this true of the destructive critics. 
 It is a very bold and suspicious attitude which the critics 
 of this day occupy, standing as they do some thirty cen- 
 turies from the date of some of these documents, and 
 passing positive judicial decision on their contents with- 
 out access to the original source from which the books 
 were compiled, if they were compiled, and I modestly 
 submit that these same specialists have no possible access 
 to those sources to determine that fact, if it be a fact. 
 That is a task so immense that nothing short of the super- 
 natural can compass it; yet these critics have the au- 
 dacious effrontery to insist that they know more about 
 these facts than Moses, Isaiah, and Daniel, who were 
 contemporary with many of the facts, and had ready 
 access to the sources from whence they wrote those his- 
 tories. And not only so, but some of these same critics 
 have insinuated that these sacred writers have recorded 
 these events after they transpired, ani palmed them off 
 for prophecies, and that many things they wrote were 
 forgeries. 
 
 Now, a word respecting the Mediating School of Crit- 
 ics before I proceed. I do not question their honesty in 
 their professed search for the truth of this burning ques- 
 tion; still I am compelled to feel that they are standing 
 on untenable and dangerous ground. My reasons for this 
 conviction are these: First, because many of them being 
 scholars of more or less repute, they are liable from the 
 pride of scholarship to be tempted to enter this hazardous 
 field, because so many eminent German rationalistic schol- 
 ars are found in it. Secondly, they are using some of the 
 same arguments in their apologetics that the Infidel crit- 
 ics are employing for a different purpose. Another reason 
 for this conviction is, that skeptics and those who deny the 
 divinity of Christ and scout the miracles and prophecies 
 of the Bible are greatly delighted at the attitude of the 
 mediating critics. 
 
 Now, lest I be suspected of overstating the attitude 
 of the leading destructive critics, I will quote from a lec- 
 ture of one of the foremost destructive critics lately de- 
 
3 2o STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 livered in the city of Glasgow, Scotland, Dr. Otto 
 Pfleiderer, of the University of Berlin. Here we have 
 some of his assertions in this lecture : 
 
 He said that "all marvelous incidents related of Jesus 
 in the gospel histories are pure inventions, added at a late 
 day; that Paul believed only in the spiritual, and not in 
 the bodily, resurrection of Jesus." He holds that "there 
 has been no supernaturally inspired revelation. All man's 
 religious ideas have been obtained by the efforts of his 
 own reason. The Bible is simply an ancient religious 
 classic, no different in kind from many other books. The 
 gospel records are largely unreliable. As for the Gospel 
 of John, it is in no sense an historical writing, but a didac- 
 tic treatise, which derived its theological ideas chiefly 
 from Philo and invested them in the form of a life of 
 Jesus, as a sort of religious fiction. Christ was merely 
 an unusual religious genius, a purely human evolution, 
 differing only in degree, if indeed in that, from other 
 religious leaders. Although He had some grand thoughts 
 about God and life, He was, it seems, rather a goody- 
 goody sort of a saint, simple-minded and well-meaning, 
 but considerably deluded. Indeed, He was like the r<- 
 us, not without His faults; He was not spotless, sinless, 
 guiltless. Some things which He is recorded to have 
 claimed for Himself can not possibly have been true. He 
 is not indisputably fit to be a file leader and head of the 
 column in humanity's hopeful march toward a better 
 future. . . . Redemption is an empty dream, atone- 
 ment an exploded notion, which Paul erroneously held; 
 there is no forgiveness of sins. Jesus did not rise from 
 the tomb, Mary did not meet her Lord in the garden, He 
 did not walk and talk with two disciples on the Emmaus 
 road, nor show His wound prints to Thomas, nor eat with 
 His disciples on the shore; for the Syrian stars look 
 down to-night on His unknown and hopeless grave." 
 This, and more of the same kind of stuff were distinctly 
 stated and inevitably implied in these lectures at Edin- 
 burgh, and are now in English print. Though Pfleiderer 
 is Professor of Theology in Berlin University, he has 
 
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 321 
 
 uttered in these lectures trash that can not be surpassed 
 by Mr. Ingersoll, the apostle of American infidelity. 
 
 Before proceeding to the real issue, I wish to say that 
 I shall appear to some disadvantage because of the brief 
 time allowed me on so broad a theme as my subject 
 involves. I will be compelled to give only a few ex- 
 amples of the fallacious arguments of the critics. 
 
 They first attack the Pentateuch. Their claim is that 
 it can not be the work of Moses. They think they see evi- 
 dence in these five books of different authors' styles. 
 They infer that they must be composite. For example, 
 we are told there are in Genesis two accounts of creation, 
 and they must have been written by different authors. 
 Others, that they were compiled from different sources 
 by one editor or redactor. Equally competent judges do 
 not see two distinct accounts, but a simple enlargement 
 of the same account. If there are two separate accounts 
 as held by the critics, their redactor or editor must have 
 been a conspicuous ignoramus not to have noticed this 
 distinction, or else, he considered them a continued ac- 
 count of the same fact. The latter is the rational view. 
 This is one of the assumptions that the critics ask us to 
 consider a settled fact. You see how modest they are? 
 
 Again, they endeavor to set aside the long-established 
 and cumulative proofs that Moses is the author of Deuter- 
 onomy. They insist that Deuteronomy could not have 
 been written by him, because the law was disregarded, 
 and "could not have been in existence" in the time of 
 Moses. Also that he could not have written it, because 
 in it there is an account of his own death. This latter 
 reason has been answered so often that it is strange the 
 critics should urge it again. The last chapter of Deuter- 
 onomy undoubtedly belongs to the Book of Joshua, and 
 was not carefully separated therefrom in the arrangement 
 of the books; but the other objection to Moses being its 
 author is frivolous and without foundation; viz., where 
 a law is generally disregarded the inference is that it 
 could not have been a statute law. This view of the 
 critics is the result of a false theory of progress or evo- 
 21 
 
322 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 lution. The modern evolution theory adopted by many is 
 that the past must be inferior to the present in knowledge 
 and virtue. These ideas started by Darwin and Herbert 
 Spencer have been largely adopted by the progressives 
 in interpreting the Bible. But this is a conspicuous fal- 
 lacy, and is not borne out by history or fact. It is tanta- 
 mount to saying that Egypt, Greece, and Rome never knew 
 greater intelligence, power, and culture than they have 
 to-day. It is the same as saying that the Christian Church 
 from the time of Constantine to Martin Luther was in a 
 purer state than during the first three centuries. It as- 
 sumes that the idolatrous period of the Jewish Church 
 could not have succeeded a pure monotheistic age, that 
 literature and historical accuracy can know no decline or 
 lapses. Its postulate is this, then, when a law is gener- 
 ally disregarded or violated : that a statute could not have 
 existed. We have Sabbath laws in this State on our stat- 
 utes that are generally violated. Is it to be inferred then 
 that we have no such statute? The history of our world 
 is largely a history of fearful lapses and apostacies, and 
 many of them of long duration and without the recovery 
 and reformation of the nations and governments where 
 they took place. This is true in literature, art, and morals. 
 Much of this doctrine of evolution of upward and bene- 
 ficial tendency is largely myth. The rude religions of the 
 heathens are regarded by many of the critics as the rude 
 germs of the best that we have in the Bible. The doctrine 
 of evolution, when applied to governments, literature, and 
 religion, has more of gush and braggadocio than solid 
 sense and fact in it, and sounds egotistically smart to the 
 self-conceit and pride of many moderns. I desire to re- 
 fresh the memories of such a little by asking them to 
 read over with care and thoughtful analysis once more 
 the Decalogue that was given to the race not less than 
 thirty centuries ago; and ask themselves candidly, Has 
 any human government improved on that as a civil and 
 moral code? How is that for a rude age such as Moses 
 lived in? There is not a civil government in the world 
 to-day that has not borrowed from Moses whatever is 
 
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 323 
 
 valuable and praiseworthy in its fundamental laws. The 
 greatest jurists of this and the last century are prodigal 
 of their praises of this Jewish code, and confess their 
 great indebtedness to it. Gentlemen, that law is super- 
 human, and so Moses to whom it was given declares. It 
 is not an evolution, but a specific creation of God. The 
 principles of right and wrong are eternal and unchange- 
 able. They do not admit of improvement, or evolution 
 if you prefer that word. I believe in the evolution of 
 getting nearer these principles and improving ourselves 
 morally and intellectually, for we are greatly below them. 
 I would like some the progressives, as they are pleased 
 to style themselves, who claim that we can get along with- 
 out the supernatural by dint of reason alone, to mention 
 some of the men in their ranks who are the peers or su- 
 periors of Moses and Joseph and Daniel of the long ago, 
 when the race was in its swaddling clothes. According to 
 their theory, Moses, Joseph, and Daniel ought to be as 
 inferior in law and statesmanship to their great and good, 
 as the infant on its mother's breast is inferior to a Newton 
 or a Humboldt. Unless Moses, Joseph, and Daniel were 
 myths, there is no solid foundation for the evolution theory 
 as they interpret it. 
 
 While I am on this point raised by the critics, I would 
 like to refer to some of the teachings in a book sent me 
 by my ancient friend, Edward Oldgreene. The author 
 of that book undertakes to apologize for the Old Testa- 
 ment, or more properly for God, for the permission of 
 wrongs appearing in the old Book, such as human slavery 
 and polygamy and divorce. He says that God winked 
 at these evils, which the enlightened conscience of this 
 age would not tolerate. A sufficient reply to that inter- 
 pretation is this, that many, nay most, of the wisest inter- 
 preters of the Old Testament in the past, and most of the 
 wisest and ablest interpreters of the present, hold this 
 view, that the Old Testament is a faithful and unvar- 
 nished history of those times, and simply relates the facts 
 without approving them in the connection in which they 
 appear, but certainly and positively condemns them in 
 
324 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 the Decalogue and impliedly condemns them in other 
 places. Silence is not to be interpreted always as ap- 
 proval. 
 
 Take the question of divorce, which is prolific of so 
 much evil in our progressive age. Christ, when ques- 
 tioned by the disciples concerning it, made this reply, 
 "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts suffered 
 you to put her away, but it was not so in the beginning." 
 That is, Moses gave no positive command in the case. He 
 could not make a law directly opposite to the law of God 
 which said, "What God hath joined together let not man 
 put asunder." God's law limits divorce to the single case 
 of adultery. But Moses, because of the hardness of their 
 hearts, in his weakness, for he was not infallible, toler- 
 ated what God forbade. In the rude primal age, as the 
 critics hold it, you see divorce and slavery were not sanc- 
 tioned- though practiced because of the wickedness of 
 those in power. Do you believe that God sanctioned the 
 enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt? It is easy to 
 comprehend how polygamy and slavery seemed to be 
 tolerated in those times. The kings and princes and the 
 rich who were invested with power were the ones who 
 practiced these sins most, and set the example before their 
 subjects. We, as a nation, have had fearful slavery and 
 not a little polygamy in our day; not because the people 
 at large sanctioned it, but because "the powers that be" 
 winked at and connived at it. It would not be true if 
 some thousand or more years from now some skeptic 
 should say how God and His people sanctioned slavery 
 and polygamy and bloodshed in Christian America. It 
 was a rude age, and they knew no better. You would 
 reply, "Away with such stuff." It was then as now, there 
 were few men like Elijah and Nathan the prophet. You 
 remember that John the Baptist lost his head for reprov- 
 ing Herod for living in adultery. There are some moral 
 heroes now, but the moral cowards greatly outnumber 
 the heroes. In view of these reflections, it is not im- 
 modest for me to suggest that these assumptions and con- 
 jectures of the critics respecting the authorship of the 
 
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 325 
 
 Pentateuch deserve about as much credence as the at- 
 tributing the works of Shakespeare to Lord Bacon. The 
 frequency and reverence with which the evangelists, the 
 apostles, and Christ Himself refer to "the law and the 
 prophets" as of Divine inspiration, and to Moses, Isaiah, 
 and Daniel as the authors, ought to have great weight 
 in settling the authenticity and genuineness of the Sacred 
 Books. It is also affirmed most positively and with remark- 
 able frequency by many of the Old Testament writers that 
 these are the writings of Moses. Joshua mentions it three 
 times, the Book of Judges once, First Chronicles once, 
 Second Chronicles twice; in all over thirty times by Old 
 Testament writers. Now, according to the critics, all these 
 positive recognitions of the Old and New Testaments are 
 to have less weight than the conjectures and assumptions 
 of a few modern scholars living over three thousand years 
 from the times and scenes of this early writer. Gentle- 
 men, this is, I suggest, too heavy a demand to make on the 
 credulity of an intelligent and thoughtful age. 
 
 But it may be asked, Have not the higher critics 
 pointed out a large number of facts warranting their 
 views? My answer is emphatically, No. Every case of 
 apparent discrepancy has been fairly and ably answered 
 again and again by Biblical scholars every way their equals 
 in scholarship. Yet they insist on "threshing over the 
 old straw" of their theories. 
 
 The critics next attack Isaiah. For twenty-five hun- 
 dred years Isaiah "had remained unchallenged and un- 
 suspected." Within the last century some person on a 
 still hunt for something throwing discredit on the au- 
 thenticity of the Bible imagined that he saw that the last 
 half of this book might have been written by some one 
 else than Isaiah. Was it a mere accident that the latter 
 half should have appeared to be more favorable to a super- 
 natural prophecy, or did that idea seem to favor the Di- 
 vine pretensions of the book more than the first part? 
 We leave that suggestion with the candid reader to decide. 
 It is marvelously strange that in twenty-five centuries 
 of careful study by capable and honest students of sacred 
 
326 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 history the unity of Isaiah had never before been sus- 
 pected. The critics concede that Isaiah wrote the first 
 part. Well then, if he wrote the first half, and it can be 
 shown that supernatural foresight is clearly seen in the 
 predictions of that part, it is unfortunate for the destruc- 
 tive critics' purpose, because of the supernatural character 
 of the last half of the prophecy. This must be so, unless 
 the critic can show beyond a doubt that Isaiah wrote the 
 predictions after the events mentioned in the first part 
 had transpired. Have they done this? We are not aware 
 of it. 
 
 Note the predictions of the first half. In Isaiah viii, 
 1-5, the prediction is made that Syria and Israel are to be 
 subdued by Assyria. In chapter ix, 2-7, the prediction 
 of the coming of the Messiah and the enlargement of His 
 kingdom is made. Was this prediction made after the 
 events? In chapter xxi, 1-10, the downfall of Babylon 
 by the Medes and Persians is foretold; in chapter xxii, 
 1-14, the siege of Jerusalem is foretold with particularity. 
 Was this written after the events? In chapter xxxix the 
 Babylonian captivity is predicted. These are only a part 
 of the supernatural predictions that are made in the first 
 part of Isaiah, and fulfilled to the letter as appears from 
 sacred and profane history. 
 
 But the unity of Isaiah is well established in the judg- 
 ment of competent scholars against the assumptions and 
 guesses of the critics about Isaiah's authorship of this 
 book. If it could be proved that some unknown person 
 wrote the latter half of this book, it would not help the 
 critics' cause in the least, seeing special predictions made 
 therein pertain particularly to the coming, sufferings, and 
 death of Christ; and unless the critics can prove that this 
 latter half was written later than the year of our Lord 
 33 their cause is lost. 
 
 If there ever was a prophetic book in the sacred canon 
 without the name of its author, this is the first instance 
 of an anonymous prophetic book. The critics have a 
 Herculean task on their hands to reconcile their "unknown 
 prophet" with the past history of the Old Testament, and 
 
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 327 
 
 to fix its date. Notice this fact, that Isaiah is mentioned 
 twenty-two times in the New Testament, and eleven times 
 in connection with the last half of this book. In view of 
 these facts, who do you think have the first claims to 
 credence in this contention, the modern guessers, or those 
 sacred writers who lived much nearer Isaiah's time? 
 
 A few words in regard to Daniel's authorship of the 
 book bearing his name. One thing is beyond dispute : 
 This book records a number of prophecies that have been 
 remarkably fulfilled. The predictive element, if true, is 
 a miracle of knowledge, and must be supernatural. The 
 contention of some of the critics is that the book was writ- 
 ten after the events transpired. The statement in Mat- 
 thew's Gospel, xxiv, 15, "When ye therefore shall see the 
 abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Dan- 
 iel," amply refutes the statement of the critics. This 
 statement of Matthew was more than fifty years after the 
 death of Christ, reference being made to the destruction 
 of the temple. 
 
 The seventy weeks of Daniel were literally fulfilled 
 in the advent, the sufferings, and death of Christ, and in 
 the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Of course 
 no sane man can hold that the predictions were made 
 after the events had transpired. Daniel was a true 
 prophet, if he was not so officially. He was a civil officer, 
 and did not devote his entire time to prophetic duties. 
 So David was both prophet and king. That the Book of 
 Daniel was in existence before the date assigned it by 
 the critics is positively asserted by Josephus. He says 
 more of the books justly believed to be Divine were writ- 
 ten after the time of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, and this 
 was two hundred and fifty years before the time assigned 
 to it by the critics. Which has the greater weight, the 
 conjectures of the critics, or the positive statement of 
 Josephus? 
 
 But once more. The critics tell us Daniel could not 
 be the author of this book because he says Belshazzar was 
 king of Babylon, and that Nebuchadnezzar was his father ; 
 but in point of fact the critics say Nabonidus was the last 
 
328 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 king, and not related to Nebuchadnezzar, and one Bel- 
 sharuzur was his son. Daniel's Belshazzar is nowhere 
 else mentioned; therefore it became a butt of ridicule 
 with unbelievers, as was Isaiah's Sargon before him. But 
 what do we find? Botta in his excavations of an As- 
 syrian mound found the palace of Sargon, and Isaiah is 
 vindicated. More recently the discovery of the cylinder 
 of Nabonides has solved the mystery of Belshazzar, and 
 Daniel is vindicated. Never mind, brethren, God and 
 the Assyriologists will take care of Daniel against all the 
 conjectures of the critics. 
 
 There is one point I have not seen mentioned anywhere 
 that is worthy of note in this discussion. It is this: 
 where there is a conflict of statement of historic facts 
 between sacred and profane historians, the critics assume 
 that the profane historian can not be in error, but the 
 sacred writer must stand aside till God and future devel- 
 opments vindicate him, as in the case of Isaiah's Sargon 
 and Daniel's Belshazzar. Now, we protest against this 
 discrimination of the higher critics in favor of the profane 
 historian as utterly unjust and unwarranted. Why should 
 he be less inerrant than the sacred historian? Will the 
 critics give an intelligent reason? 
 
 We are told that the prophecy of Daniel can not be 
 older than 150 B. C. But in chapter viii we have Daniel's 
 2,320 days and in chapter ix his 70 weeks, which mean 
 490 years B. C. How can they reconcile this with 150 
 B. C. ? But these prophecies take in their vast sweep 
 the advent, death, and glorious triumphs of Christ's 
 Church in the ages to come, and if some Daniel wrote 
 these only 150 years B. C, he must have been super- 
 naturally endowed. 
 
 "The scientic method," so called, of the higher critics, 
 is the reverse of God's method. Jesus interprets the Old 
 Testament by the New. God declares that the natural 
 men discerneth not the things of the Spirit, for they are 
 spiritually discerned. Jesus says : "I thank Thee, O 
 Father, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise 
 and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Is it 
 
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 329 
 
 probable that if the friends of the Bible could give as 
 indubitable proof of the Divine records as Christ gave 
 the scribes and Pharisees of His Divinity, that such men 
 as Keunen, Wellhausen, Bauer, and Pfleiderer would ac- 
 cept the Bible as divine? 
 
 I make the charge against the infidel critics of crim- 
 inal unfairness in declining to read the replies of able 
 men to their arguments, and declining to answer the 
 same. 
 
 To a man who has been soundly converted there is no 
 need to prove that the Bible is a Divine revelation, and 
 that prophecy is a miracle of knowledge, and of conse- 
 quence Divine. He has the indubitable proof that Paul 
 had in his conversion that "the gospel is the power of 
 God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew 
 first, and also to the Greek." It is only to convince the 
 skeptical world that the Bible is what it claims to be, that 
 it becomes necessary to expose the shallow fallacies of 
 the higher critics. 
 
 Bishop William Taylor, of Africa, recently (January 
 27, 1895) received a letter from John Davis, a converted 
 and superstitious witch doctor, which reads as follows: 
 "Pray for me, that the truth may keep me saved day by 
 day. I have found out that it is all sweet to have hope 
 in Jesus Christ, to trust Him for all things, for I know 
 and am sure that God is true and nothing but the 
 truth. 
 
 "Pray for me, that I may find out the truth more and 
 more. Amen ! to the truth ; for Jesus Christ is the true 
 Son of God. I am your brother in Him who is true." 
 
 Where did this poor heathen witch doctor get this 
 clear knowledge and experience but by the Holy Spirit? 
 Has any learned higher critic anything better to offer? 
 We doubt it. This heathen convert's experience upsets 
 the higher criticism. Christ declares, "If any man will 
 do His will he shall know of the doctrine, whether I speak 
 of Myself." And this but confirms Paul's declaration, 
 "That the world by wisdom knew not God." But as inti- 
 mated, it becomes necessary to refute error, to silence 
 
330 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 honest doubters and no other. To waste time with dis- 
 honest doubters is only to "cast pearls before swine, who 
 will turn again and rend you." 
 
 Once more then to the issue. Porphyry, an early in- 
 fidel writer, called the prophecies of Daniel, especially 
 that of chapter xi, "forgeries." After Jerome pulverized 
 his sophistries into fine dust centuries ago, the critics are 
 reaffirming his old theories. This is what Porphyry said: 
 "No one could have predicted beforehand a picture so 
 like a photograph. The man who wrote it must have lived 
 afterward, or must have sketched pen in hand from the 
 actual picture. No man could possibly be so accurate four 
 hundred years before the events." 
 
 True, no man unless supernaturally endowed could 
 have drawn that picture so to the life. But this is pre- 
 cisely what Daniel claimed. This is what Christ claimed 
 for Daniel's prophecies. This is precisely what the author 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews claims for Daniel. This is 
 a clear petitio principii. Think of it ! They ask us to 
 give up the very point in debate; viz., the supernaturalism 
 of the Bible. Are they not modest? But consider a mo- 
 ment what is implied in the statement of Porphyry and 
 the higher critics who repeat his threadbare argument. 
 The man who wrote these prophecies must have lived 
 afterwards, and must have sketched pen in hand from 
 the actual picture; that is, Christ's deity, advent, and suf- 
 ferings were actual facts, or were the picture from which 
 this Daniel got his "photograph," and therefore must have 
 been written after Christ's death. Pfieiderer and others 
 deny that these were facts, or that the model from which 
 this fictitious Daniel drew his predictions was real. You 
 see what a mess of contradictions their varient theories 
 involve. 
 
 Now give heed to the following facts : First, the author 
 of this book says : "I, Daniel alone, saw the vision. The 
 vision appeared unto me, even unto me, Daniel. He talked 
 with me and said unto me, O Daniel, I am now come, 
 first to give thee skill and understanding." He thus ex- 
 plicitly sets up his claim of authorship of this book. No 
 
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 331 
 
 other book of the Bible sets up higher or more distinct 
 claims than Daniel does for this. But contemporary his- 
 tory claims it for Daniel. Ezekiel mentions Daniel along 
 with Noah and Job. (Chapter xxiv.) Again Ezekiel 
 compares Daniel with the prince of Tyre, (xxviii, 3.) 
 
 But higher authority than the above we have. Christ 
 calls him "Daniel the prophet," and refers to an impor- 
 tant prediction touching the destruction of the temple 
 spoken of by Daniel. 
 
 Furthermore the Septuagint translated from the He- 
 brew 300 years B. C. contains the Book of Daniel. How 
 did it get there if Daniel's prophecy was not written till 
 after the events transpired, or, as some modern critics tell 
 us, it could not have been written earlier than 150 years 
 before Christ? But as the critics are expert at framing 
 conjectures, the Christian world is curious to know how 
 they will unravel this enigma and reconcile it with their 
 theory of the date of this book. 
 
 Alexander the Great saw this Book of Daniel 350 
 years before Christ. So says Josephus, and that he was 
 delighted to learn from a certain high priest named Jad- 
 dua that Daniel's "he goat" of Macedon meant Alexander 
 himself, who was to overthrow "the ram" of Persia. An- 
 other very significant fact is this, that Nehemiah the 
 prophet fixes the date of this Jaddua the priest in the 
 time of Darius the Persian. Now, is this decisive testi- 
 mony of Josephus and Nehemiah to be set aside by the 
 guesses of the critics? What are their opportunities to 
 pass a rational decision on this question compared with 
 that of Nehemiah and Josephus? Let it be remembered 
 that there is a gulf of over twenty centuries between them 
 and this Daniel. But their capacity for conjecture is 
 enormous, and is only matched by their extreme mod- 
 esty (?). "The first scholarship of the age" has the 
 egotism to expect that the common-sense world will gulp 
 down without questioning their unsustained theories 
 against all of the above facts, and immensely more of 
 the same, and only because they assert high claims to 
 scholarship. We take occasion here and now to advertise 
 
332 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 them that it is a delusive expectation. The day is past 
 when thoughtful and candid people can thus be gulled. 
 
 It is not stating the case too strongly to assert that 
 there is not a modern book to-day that, if submitted to a 
 like treatment the critics subject the Bible to, but could 
 be proved to be somebody else's book than the real au- 
 thor's. This unjust and irrational method of the higher 
 critics has recently been applied to the works of Sir Wal- 
 ter Scott, John Milton, Tennyson, Mr. Gladstone, and Dr. 
 Briggs, and if this method is correct and philosophical 
 in disposing of Isaiah and Daniel, then it is equally clear 
 that these modern gentlemen are not the authors of the 
 books bearing their names. In the next two thousand 
 years if the scholarship will have so advanced beyond the 
 present stage, then it will be exceedingly doubtful whether 
 Wellhausen, Bauer, Keunen, and Pfleiderer were the men 
 who wrote against the genuineness and authenticity of the 
 Bible, or whether they were not somebody else, or prob- 
 ably myths. 
 
 From the Old Testament they pass to the New, and 
 assail the Gospel of St. John, but with no better success 
 than in the Old Testament. It is not at all singular that 
 they should attack John, rather than Matthew or Mark. 
 John's Gospel favors the supernaturalism of the Bible and 
 the prophecies concerning the Divinity of Christ more 
 positively than the others. The aim of the destructive 
 critics is to throw suspicion on the predictive element of 
 the Old Testament in order to cast discredit on the Di- 
 vinity of Christ; for if the Old Testament is vindicated, 
 the supernatural character and mission of Christ is inevi- 
 table. Hence their attack on John and the miracles of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 I ought to devote a few minutes to some insinuations 
 cast on some of the writers of the Bible. Some of the 
 writings are called forgeries, and others literary immoral- 
 ities. Whoever reads the Bible with care can not escape 
 the fact that an elevated ethical tone pervades it; that 
 the prophetical portions are severely impartial. There is 
 no covering up or palliating vice in king or subject, in 
 
THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 333 
 
 rich or poor. The faults and weaknesses of the best men 
 are detailed with rigid impartiality. The question I put 
 is this: Could, or rather would, such men be guilty of 
 forgery and such literary immorality as they are charged 
 with? It can not be. It is quite more likely that the ene- 
 mies of the Bible are the perverters of the truth. 
 
 This leads me to call the attention of the reader more 
 particularly to the ethical tone of the Old Testament, as 
 it is the practice of unbelievers and critics to berate it. 
 Consider the following among the laws of those distant 
 times : 
 
 "Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or sheep go astray, 
 and hide thyself from them; thou shalt in any case bring 
 them again unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not 
 nigh thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring 
 it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until 
 thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him 
 again." 
 
 "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite for he is thy 
 brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou 
 wast a stranger in his land." 
 
 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant 
 that is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell 
 with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall 
 choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best, thou 
 shalt not oppress him." 
 
 "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother ; usury 
 of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is 
 lent upon usury." 
 
 "When thou comest into thy neighbor's vineyard, then 
 thou mayest eat grapes to thy fill at thine own pleasure, 
 but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. When thou 
 comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou 
 mayest pluck the ears with thy hand, but thou shalt not 
 move a sickle unto thy neighbor's standing corn." This is 
 a benevolent provision for the poor. 
 
 "Thou shalt not oppress the hired servant that is poor 
 and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy 
 strangers that are in thy land within thy gates." 
 
334 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 "Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, 
 nor of the fatherless, nor take a widow's raiment to pledge, 
 but thou must remember that thou wast a bondman in 
 Egypt, and the Lord redeemed thee thence." 
 
 "When thou cuttest down thy harvest in thy field, and 
 hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again 
 to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, 
 and for the widow." So of the olive-trees and the vine- 
 yard, they are for the stranger, for the fatherless, and 
 the widow. "And thou shalt remember that thou wast a 
 bondman in the land of Egypt; therefore I command thee 
 to do this thing." 
 
 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten 
 image an abomination unto the Lord. All the people shall 
 answer, amen." 
 
 "Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his 
 mother, and all the people shall say, amen." 
 
 "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark, 
 and all the people shall say, amen." 
 
 "Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out 
 of his way, and all the people shall say, amen." 
 
 "Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbor secretly, and 
 all the people shall say, amen." 
 
 "Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the 
 stranger, fatherless, and widow, and all the people shall 
 say, amen." 
 
 "Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay the innocent 
 person, and all the people shall say, amen." 
 
 These are a part, and only a small part, of the humane 
 and just laws and teachings that were in force thirty- 
 three centuries ago, and are in no sense inferior to any- 
 thing generally practiced in this boasted age of intelli- 
 gence and progress. There is certainly nothing surpass- 
 ing them as a high ethical standard, unless it be in the 
 pure teachings of Jesus, whom Pfleiderer styles "a goody- 
 goody kind of a saint, not without His faults, and con- 
 siderably deluded." 
 
 Who among the higher critics of the Pfleiderer stamp 
 are permitting the poor to visit their vineyards, gardens, 
 
THE HIGHER CRITICISM, 335 
 
 and orchards to satisfy their hunger to the full without 
 compensation ? Who among them are loaning their money 
 to their brethren and relatives without interest? Who of 
 them are sheltering and protecting the fugitive slave flee- 
 ing from his cruel task master? Who of them are not 
 retaliating on some Edomite or Egyptian who oppressed 
 and enslaved them? He that is without sin in these par- 
 ticulars among the traducers of Old Testament times and 
 literary immoralities, let him "cast the first stone." I 
 think in the glare of these ethical teachings they ought 
 to slink away into oblivion. In the light of such teach- 
 ings let no skeptic bring a slander against the morals of 
 the Mosaic institutes. If there were any deviations — and 
 there were flagrant ones — from these strict and impartial 
 laws, it was not the fault of the laws nor the absence of 
 them, but the deliberate purpose of wicked kings, princes, 
 and licentious men, who set these wholesome regulations 
 at defiance, just as we see the majority doing now, with 
 all the accumulated light of the ages before them. We, 
 as a nation, are preparing for such another apostasy as 
 overthrew Egypt, Greece, and Rome by treating lightly 
 these principles contained in the Decalogue and Mosaic 
 Institutes. Some critic will charge me with using this 
 prophecy after the apostasy has occurred, and denounce 
 it as a forgery perhaps; the only difference is, mine does 
 not profess to be a supernatural prediction. 
 
 In conclusion, we are clearly of the conviction from 
 reading of the mediating school of critics, that they have 
 not vindicated the credibility of the Old Testament and 
 its high claims to be a supernatural revelation, against the 
 argument of the destructive critics of the Bauer and 
 Pfleiderer schools, if Canon Driver and Professor Briggs 
 are fair representatives of that school. A ripe scholar 
 and deep thinker says of Dr. Driver's arguments on the 
 historical criticism, that "they are thoroughly loose and 
 arbitrary." The same accurate writer says of Professor 
 Briggs, that, after giving twenty-seven years of study to 
 this subject, he has abandoned the ground he stood on a 
 few years ago that he regarded as conservative ground, 
 
336 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 but by others as dangerous liberalism. Between what he 
 regarded as solid conservative ground then and his book 
 of 1893, "the gulf is wide and deep." We fear that in 
 view of the Christian reputation and scholarship of the 
 mediating school, their ground is even more dangerous 
 to the doctrine of the supernaturalism of the Bible than 
 that of the infidel school, because they depend largely on 
 the same arguments, and if their positions should be gen- 
 erally accepted the Bible would be emasculated and so 
 eliminated as to be a merely human book, and have no 
 more power to save the world than Shakespeare's plays 
 or Euclid's geometry. 
 
 I can not close without giving a half amusing and 
 serious account in my possession of what is likely to be 
 the outcome of our grand old Bible, should the views of 
 the critics obtain it. It is entitled, 
 
 Results of the Higher Criticism. 
 
 Old Deacon Jones had been brought up from his youth 
 to accept the Bible as the undoubted Word of God. He 
 had no more question as to the authenticity of the Scrip- 
 tures than of his own existence. He was therefore very 
 much surprised on the second Sabbath after the coming 
 of the new pastor to hear him declare that the first few 
 chapters were a myth ; that the author did not intend to 
 give a literal account of creation, but wrote this fanciful 
 record to counteract the polytheistic tendencies of his 
 times, and lead the people to accept the doctrine of one 
 God. 
 
 When the deacon came home he said to his wife, 
 "Mary, bring me the scissors." "What do you want with 
 the scissors?" "Why, our new pastor says these first 
 chapters of Genesis are myths. Now, I do n't want any 
 myths in my old Bible, and I 'm going to cut them out." 
 "Well, I would n't spoil my old Bible that we 've read 
 together so often, and that we love so much." "O, it 
 won't spoil it ! We want the truth. The new pastor 
 knows better than we, for he is- a scholar." They were 
 cut out. Not long after he called for the scissors again. 
 
THB HIGHER CRITICISM. 337 
 
 This time the whole Pentateuch had to be removed. When 
 the wife remonstrated, he said: "Why, the pastor says 
 that the best scholarship declares that Moses did not write 
 these books; that they were pamphlets gathered from 
 various sources; some of them borrowed from the As- 
 syrians or Egyptians, and some statements made in them 
 show that they were written centuries after Moses died." 
 They were cut out. 
 
 Again the scissors were called for. This time the last 
 half of the Book of Isaiah was removed, because the pas- 
 tor said that "while he would not say he fully believed 
 they were written by Isaiah, the son of Amoz, yet the 
 higher criticism of the schools had declared that some 
 unknown author had added the last twenty-five or thirty 
 chapters. 
 
 A few Sabbaths followed, and then the good deacon 
 was surprised to hear that there were grave doubts among 
 scholars concerning the Gospel of John, that precious gos- 
 pel, so full of the teachings of the blessed Master, and 
 from which he had gained so much comfort and instruc- 
 tion in the time of trouble. 
 
 Then the books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the 
 Songs of Solomon were cut out. The story of Jonah was 
 made to appear so ridiculously strange that the deacon 
 imbibed something of the spirit of the pastor and slashed 
 through it in no easy manner. Almost every Sunday 
 there was a reference made by the pastor to some inter- 
 polation, and the deacon "didn't want interlopers in the 
 Bible." 
 
 They were all cut out, just as the scholarly pastor 
 said. 
 
 Thus it went on to the end of the second year. One 
 day the deacon said : "Come, Mary, let 's go up and make 
 our new pastor a call. We have n't been to see him very 
 lately." "Are you going to take your Bible with you?" 
 "O yes ! I want him to see how the higher criticism of 
 the best scholarship has improved it." 
 
 They called and were seated, and the pastor noticed 
 the peculiar looking book in the hands of the deacon. 
 
 22 
 
333 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 "What have you there, deacon?" "My Bible." "It is 
 a queer looking Bible ! What have you been doing to 
 it ?" "Well now, pastor, I '11 tell you. Every time you 
 doubted any passage of Scripture, or said it was an inter- 
 polation, I have cut it out. All the books of doubtful 
 authenticity are gone. The stories borrowed from heathen 
 nations, the myths, everything that you implied was ques- 
 tionable I have removed according to your teachings. 
 But, thank God ! my dear pastor, the covers of the good 
 old Book are still left. All the rest is gone, and I want to 
 thank you so much for leaving the covers." 
 
 HONOLULU SKETCHES. 
 
 Written at the Sandwich Islands, 1856. 
 I. 
 
 Sketches of marked cases of death-bed scenes are 
 of great value, and should be preserved. They serve a 
 double and effective purpose. They are useful to the 
 minister in the way of anecdote, and when published in 
 books and religious journals they often awaken the care- 
 less, lukewarm professor of religion and carry conviction 
 to the wholly impenitent. This is my apology for pre- 
 senting a sketch or two for the Advocate that came under 
 my immediate notice during the past year. 
 
 Mr. Smith, an infidel of the Andrew Jackson Davis 
 school, came within the bounds of my work in quest of 
 health. He was in the last stage of pulmonary consump- 
 tion. I providentially made his acquaintance. I found 
 him a man of some intelligence, though not of extensive 
 acquirements. He was of that independent, common-sense 
 class of men who are usually enterprising and influential. 
 Having inquired of him what part of the world he was 
 from, and other things of a like nature, I remarked to him: 
 
 "Mr. Smith, you seem to be in feeble health." 
 
 He replied, "Yes, I am a victim of consumption and 
 can not live long." 
 
 "Your fears, I apprehend, are not without a good 
 
HONOLULU SKETCHES. 339 
 
 foundation. Well, Mr. Smith, how do you feel in your 
 mind in view of death and the future?" 
 
 "Those are matters I do not trouble myself much 
 about. Like other men, I must die and stand my chance." 
 
 I endeavored to show him that he was a sinner, and 
 that he would stand in need of a change of heart. This 
 evidently did not set well on him. He bristled up and 
 made signs of a theological combat. He soon let me 
 know that he was an honest man, that he was upright in 
 his dealings with his fellow-men, and endeavored to do 
 to others as he would have them do to him. This he 
 thought was all that God or men could reasonably require 
 of him. I then introduced him to the third chapter of 
 John's Gospel, and called his attention particularly to 
 the necessity of the new birth. This he did not relish, 
 and fell to abusing Christians. He thought them about 
 all hypocrites, except his father and mother, whom he 
 thought sincere, though deluded. I continued to urge 
 upon his attention his need of Christ, that none other 
 could do him any good or save him from his sins. He 
 scouted the idea, and openly declared to me his infidelity. 
 Christ he considered only a man, and a bastard at that ! 
 I became very much shocked at his rage and blasphemy ! 
 As soon as was convenient I ended the interview and 
 bade him good afternoon. 
 
 I called again the next day, or the day after, but did 
 not introduce the subject of religion. I inquired concern- 
 ing his health, and whether he needed anything to render 
 him comfortable in body. As he seemed rapidly declining, 
 I made inquiry concerning his friends, and found that he 
 had several children in the State of Michigan and some 
 other relatives in the States. He stated to me that he 
 had some property at home, and that he desired to make 
 some arrangements about dividing it among his children. 
 I asked him if I could render him any assistance. He 
 replied I could by writing to his children and those having 
 charge of them, for they were motherless. I promised him 
 that I would call the next day and have him dictate what 
 I should write. 
 
340 STORY OF MY UFB. 
 
 I accordingly called, and sat down to write. I noticed 
 when I alluded to his children that he had a strong affec- 
 tion for them. These children were put out with different 
 families, so that I had to write a number of letters. As 
 I had about finished the first letter and read it to him, I 
 saw that his eyes were brim full and would soon over- 
 flow. Said I : 
 
 "Mr. Smith, seeing you will never meet your dear 
 children on earth again, what shall I say to them for you 
 concerning the future?" He was too full for utterance, 
 and buried his face in his handkerchief for some time. 
 When he had sufficiently recovered himself, he replied in 
 a subdued tone, "I hardly know what to say." 
 
 "Shall I say to them for you, that you will endeavor 
 to meet them in heaven?" With some little hesitancy, 
 but with earnestness and deep feeling, he answered, "Yes, 
 you may" 
 
 As I would draw near the conclusion of the business 
 part of each of the letters severally, I asked him what 
 I should say to his friends concerning the future. "Well, 
 tell them I will strive to meet them in heaven." It was 
 just in this simple but natural way God gave me access 
 to this man's heart. Ever after that he was ready to hear 
 me speak of the concerns of the soul. I visited him almost 
 daily from that time till his death, which was between 
 two and three months. He soon permitted me to read the 
 Bible and pray with him, which I frequently did. He 
 became deeply convinced that he was a sinner and needed 
 Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had before derided. He 
 frankly renounced his infidelity, but expressed his fears 
 that God would not have mercy on him for his guilty 
 treatment of His dear Son. For several weeks he labored 
 under serious doubts as to God's willingness to have mercy 
 upon such a wretch as he. By reading the Bible, with 
 what little encouragement I was able under God to give 
 him, the light of hope gradually broke in upon him. 
 Though his change was very gradual, yet it was per- 
 ceptible to those who had conversed with him previous 
 to his conviction. He came to have a great liking for the 
 
HONOLULU SKETCHES. 341 
 
 Bible, and in fact would read no other book. He also 
 took pleasure in prayer and religious conversation. 
 
 Another proof of a genuine and thorough change that 
 had been wrought in his heart, was his forgiving spirit. 
 He had a bitter hatred of some professing Christians, 
 who, as he said, "treated him more like a brute than a 
 fellow human being." He said he could forgive them 
 and the greatest enemy he had on earth. He expressed 
 deep regrets that he had indulged such wicked feelings 
 towards them and had said so many hard things of 
 them. 
 
 His experience and light were those of the just, which 
 shone more and more till the hour of his death. There 
 are many particulars of interest in this case that our 
 limits will not permit us to notice. A word about his last 
 days and hours, and we shall have done. When his end 
 drew near he wished to make as public a profession of his 
 faith in Christ as the state of his health would permit. 
 He desired that I should administer to him the sacraments 
 of baptism and the Lord's Supper. I invited two min- 
 isters of other denominations to be present, and two or 
 three Christian females. When I propounded the usual 
 baptismal questions he answered them in a clear, melting 
 tone that sent a thrill through every breast. He enjoyed 
 these blessed means very much. A heavenly smile lighted 
 his whole emaciated countenance, that was truly refresh- 
 ing to look upon. This was a scene that can never be 
 effaced from memory. It was "the chamber where the 
 good man meets his fate, privileged beyond the common 
 walks of virtuous life, quite on the verge of heaven." To 
 the astonishment of all he lingered for about two weeks 
 after his baptism. His end was peace. 
 
 Shortly before he died he wished to leave the minister, 
 at whose house he lay sick, and myself some mementos 
 of his regard for us. He presented me with a Bible he 
 had received after coming to our place, and the other 
 minister with Andrew Jackson Davis's works, or as he 
 playfully termed them, his "Infidel Bible." He requested 
 that these infidel publications should not fall into the 
 
342 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 hands of men of unsettled views. He considered them 
 very dangerous books. 
 
 Such cases as this are calculated to stimulate the min- 
 ister of Christ to faithful pastoral visitation. There are 
 thousands that can never be reached in any other way. 
 Such are the pastor's richest legacies. Brethren, enter 
 this desirable field, and occupy it faithfully till the Master 
 come. 
 
 II. 
 
 During the year 1856, while laboring in the city of 
 Honolulu, in the course of my pastoral visitation I fell 
 in with a Mr. Studley, who was deeply skeptical, though 
 not an out-and-out infidel. This peculiarity rendered him 
 less accessible than if he had been openly and avowedly 
 infidel. He was altogether a peculiar case. He was the 
 victim of a violent and protracted consumption. His 
 friends had been looking for his death annually for the 
 last five years, but to the great astonishment of all he 
 survived till late in 1856. 
 
 He was a man of good natural parts, and of tolerable 
 acquirements. He was a person of great firmness; very 
 probably some would have termed it stubbornness. He 
 seemed unmovable in his views. There was in him a 
 reservedness that amounted to something like repulsive- 
 ness. He was unapproachable on the subject of personal 
 religion. He was in the habit of treating those who called 
 upon him during his illness and spoke to him about his 
 eternal interest with great coldness and even positive 
 contempt. He would even swear at them and request 
 them to attend to their own business. Thus he treated 
 some pious and intelligent females who called on him. 
 By some providence or other — for it was not any good- 
 ness or skill above what others possessed — I met with a 
 more favorable reception from him. I repeated my visits 
 frequently for months together, pressing upon him as I 
 could the claims of Christianity. Though he would allow 
 me to speak to him on this subject, yet he evidently re- 
 ceived it coldly and reluctantly. The salvation of his soul 
 
HONOLULU SKETCHES. 343 
 
 was, without doubt, an unweicome subject to him. When 
 little closely pressed by me on certain points he would 
 say: 
 
 "Mr. Turner, I would not turn my head if an act so 
 simple and easy would determine my salvation or damna- 
 tion. I have become utterly indifferent upon this subject, 
 upon which you seemingly are so deeply interested." 
 
 He frequently expressed himself thus. It was the 
 opinion of those who knew the state of his mind best 
 that his was a hopeless case; i. e., that he had gone beyond 
 the limit of Divine mercy. In fact, I was driven to this 
 opinion at times myself. I thought if I had ever seen a 
 case that was given over to believe a lie that he might be 
 damned this was one. Finding that my visits were not 
 producing any marked change in his spiritual state, and 
 witnessing his inveterate incorrigibleness and total want 
 of concern about his approaching end — which he was 
 free to admit — I remarked to him: 
 
 "Mr. Studley, I fear my visits are not benefiting you 
 any spiritually, and probably I had better desist, seeing 
 the subjects upon which I converse are not pleasing or 
 interesting to you." 
 
 He frankly acknowledged that my suspicions were well 
 founded, yet he thanked me for my well meant efforts 
 to benefit him. Upon taking my leave of him, I said : 
 
 "Mr. Studley, if you should need any assistance in the 
 way of means or attentions to contribute to your comfort 
 and enjoyment let me know it, and I will most gladly lend 
 you any assistance in my power. Your time here is evi- 
 dently short, and I desire to make you as happy and com- 
 fortable as possible while you are in the body. I most 
 kindly and seriously assure you that your ease and com- 
 fort are infinitely greater here than they will be in the 
 undying future, if you enter it in your present state of 
 mind." With these remarks I bade him farewell, telling 
 him that when he desired to see me again to let me know. 
 To which he assented. 
 
 In a week or two his brother-in-law spoke to the gen- 
 tleman with whom I was stopping, and said with em- 
 
344 STORY OF MY LIFE. 
 
 phasis, "Tell Mr. Turner I think Mr. Studley would like 
 to see him !" 
 
 When I received this intelligence I knew not what 
 to make of it. I, however, did not confer with my feel- 
 ings, but hastened to see the sick man. To my utter sur- 
 prise I found him rejoicing in a pardoning God. He 
 gave me a most joyful reception, and we had a season of 
 rejoicing together for the great things the Lord had done 
 for him. 
 
 I inquired of him particularly the circumstances of his 
 sudden and remarkable change. He informed me that 
 shortly after I ceased calling on him, one evening, being 
 alone and lying upon a lounge in his sitting-room in medi- 
 tation about his protracted sickness, what pain and agony 
 he had endured, and that a powerful impression was made 
 upon his mind in regard to his wretched state of body and 
 worse state of mind. He said the impression could not 
 have been more vivid had a voice from heaven uttered 
 it audibly to him: "If you murmur and complain so bit- 
 terly and angrily about your comparatively light afflic- 
 tions now, what will you do when driven into an eternity 
 of sufferings, compared with which your present suffer- 
 ing is but a drop?" 
 
 This came to him with such authority and power that 
 his whole frame was shaken with emotion. It further- 
 more came to him as a question that was to be settled 
 by him immediately. His hour was near by. After a 
 moment's reflection he replied audibly to what he sup- 
 posed the voice of God, "Lord, I give up; I will yield my 
 stubborn will!" 
 
 Immediately peace flowed into his soul. He went to 
 the table, opened the Bible, and commenced reading. It 
 was no longer a sealed Book. The fountain of tears was 
 broken up and overflowed in a wonderful manner. He 
 further informed me that for a long time he had been 
 fighting against God; that he had positively dared the 
 Lord to come on with afflictions, but was finally led to see 
 that "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the 
 living God." The moment he ceased his daring rebellion 
 
HONOLULU SKETCHES. 345 
 
 and grounded his unequal arms God pardoned him. In a 
 few weeks after his conversion he died in the triumphs of 
 the Christian faith. 
 
 This case was a severe reproof to my weak faith, and 
 taught me a lesson I shall never forget of the great im- 
 portance of pastoral visitation. I said to myself, "There 
 is hope for the most flagrant sinners." In this field of 
 labor most of those who have been converted under my 
 labors have been reached in pastoral visitation. This we 
 mention for the encouragement of those who find it em- 
 barrassing and difficult to perform this part of ministerial 
 duty. 
 
 To the infidel and skeptic this case is an additional 
 proof of the insufficiency of their views to abide the test 
 of the dying hour. God showed this man that He could 
 prolong his life for years, and yet increase his already 
 great sufferings, and after all they would be but as the 
 dust in the balances compared with the infinite weight 
 of torment awaiting him in the future. This man learned, 
 as every skeptic should learn, the truth of the Asiatic 
 proverb, "This world is the wicked man's paradise and 
 the good man's hell." 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the 
 expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing, as 
 provided by the library rules or by special arrangement with 
 the Librarian in charge. 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C28 (449) M50 
 
 
 
 
938.6 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 0035521708 
 
 T859 
 
 938.6 T859 
 Turner 
 
 Story of my life. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BRITTLE DO NOT 
 PHOTOCOPY 
 
 ,^ 1QJ1C