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," "Descent of Man," "Evolution of Man," "History of Creation," Think of it! Who but Moses ever undertook to give a history of creation till these gentlemen of the nineteenth century conceived the idea? Does their proximity 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 wisdom" of the most learned people in the world, lived fortyfive centuries nearer the creation than Charles Darwin and Ernst Häckel, 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 account, 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 regard 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

constituted that make men believe that they came into being by chance, or by the operation of blind, unintelligent law, as both Darwin and Häckel 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 dangerous! 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, Häckel, 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

not suppose, from his high vantage ground, that he entertains 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 LL. 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 advantage 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 treatment of this living issue. I hope to meet my opponent's arguments 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

once to a servant or a subordinate. In this fact there is nothing in the Scriptures to warrant the idea of subordination and secondariness, that some of the exegetes are reading into this word ezer. 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 "secondary rank in matters of government and authority." If secondary, then it can not be co-ordinate, as the Doctor conceded 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 dignity 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 declares that she took "a secondary rank in matters of authority and government" after her lapse? If she was coordinate before her fall, as he concedes she was, and secondary 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: "Nothing 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 wellestablished 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

radical change in the last fifty years as to the treatment she has received at the hands of the Church. For centuries her voice was not tolerated in the Church in promiscuous 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 require" 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 practical 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 capabilities 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 question 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 daughters 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