Terre Haute Weekly Gazette, Volume 6, Number 4, Terre Haute, Vigo County, 23 July 1874 — Page 2

•Y

W. C. BALL & CO., Prop'rs.

§eqe "§mtie izcttc.

Thursday, July 23, 1874.

THE TOPE A MASON.

A Mnatcr Manon After a Roman Catholic Priest.

Tim ltoni.inChurch Itevlmwid.

To

till)

I-

tO O

IlloKVCUlng (Jf.

Your correspondent, "A Catholic PrieHt," is Honiowh.'it con!iiscd. 11 i« mind seems vacillating, and vibratos from fiiilc lo side liko Uio pendulum of a clock. Ho tiad already wild, in terms liioi cmpbat ic than c.iioicc. that, tlio story about I ho Pope's having boon a Freemason wiiH "stain Hi'," and jet. |H1 MOW tells 1110, wlt.-l II :t 1

OtllpllUMlS,

'•that tlio I'opo was Freemason How in it III a l. a mmi of such apparent ciilluro mlMindnrstaiidH himself? I bad almost begun to indulgo thehopo Mint tlio Htory wiih not true, oil I tin Pope's account for tlio venerable and rovoroned Pontiff has much of my esteem, beeauso of his acknowledged vlrtuoH as a man, and as tho head of a grout church, This concession, howovor, putH an nnd to tlio controversy on that point. Hinco wo aro justified in considering tho last utterances of a man as his final conclusions. His denunciation and concession,HOsingular1 intermixed, remind mo of what Shakospoaro Haid: "Ami oftontlnies cxcuslun of fault Doth make the fault tho worne l»y tho excuse."

And iio becomes still moro bcwildorod wlifln lie ('OIIIPH to talk about tho lnHtltution of Freemasonry. Alter having told

IIH

that It tonded lo infidelity,

and WfiH thereforo bcretical, ho nays "a Catholic can join Freemasonry without denying any artie'lo of faith that ho may do it "just IIH a murderer or robber commits bis crim^ without lowing tlio faith in tho immorality of his act," If thiH means anytiiing that an intelligent mind can comprehend, it means this that a man may boa horetic, or a murderer, or a lobber, iind a dutiful member of tho church at tho samo timo Jiomaydo what ho pleases so that ho does not loso tlio faith No mattar how immoral his act, yet if, in liis lioart, ho assunts to tho teachings of tho church, and does not give up tho faith, ho remains a Christian, in tho eyes of tlio church I do not discuss tho theology ol'this doctrine—for I am no theologian, and inako it an invariable rule to quarrel with no man about his religion—but would respectfully ask whether this is the religion of the Catholic Church?

If it 1h, tho faithful, in (lie eves of that church, can commit no crime by tho violation of any human law, so long as they give thoir unquestioning assent to Its teachings, and all punishment of thoin by tho civil tribunals is, eoiiHOquontly, porsecution.

And yot ho tolls us that Mickey's oorpso would havo boon removed from tho Catholic burying ground, whero it was doposltod by tho Freemasons, if, boforo his doath, hw had not renounced Freemasonry. Mow tho fact Is about his renunciation I do not Itnow or care but this I know, that if his body had been removed tho perpetrators of tho act would have boon duly punished under tho criminal laws of tlio Htato. Hut why should ho havo renounced Freemasonry in order to entrio his body to quiet reposo in a Catholic gravo-yard, if lie could "join FrooMinsonry without denying any article filth?" Kvon if tho act woro heretical, yet, if ho did not loso the I'ailh, ho was still within the church

Two things aro to bu observed just jiere. Tho lirst is, that "A Catholic Priest" floes not anpoar' lo havo any very woll dotinod hioas of what ho is writing about and, second, it seems that his objection to tho liurial was not so much on account of what Micky had done, ns on account of Ills hatred and abhorronuo of tho Freemasons who performed tho ceremony. Did their presonco desecrate tho conRocratod spot? Thoy undoubtedly had a legal light to bo there, nnd to perform thoir ceremony over tlio remains of a deceased brother and, under like circumstiinoos, would probably ropoat tho act. In this country, tlio rights of persons, property, and tilings aro not yet governed by ecclesiastical law. Nor will thoy bo, unless, toy Homo unexpected possibility of the future, tlio doctrine ot J\ipnl infallibility shall bo carried to its ultimate and intended results.

Mo thinks mo ignorant about this "dogma of infallibility." Then i.o should havo instructed mo. Not having dono BO, I um half Inclined to susiioct that lie would iind tlio tusk a hard ono, to uiuloitako an intelligent exposition of a doctrino which toaelios that a mere man, with a natnro and passions llko our own, can bo so ondowed with divlno attributo up to bo incapablo of error or mistako Jn Inatters of both faith and morals. Hut how does Iio know that 1 aift thus ignorant? 1 havo not yot told liiin what I think about this M?U doctrino of his church. In reminding him that tho Popo was •'but a man—not Cod," my only design was to deny to iiini any BUCII attribute whilo I readily concedo that, as man and Christian, ho is entitled to miivorsftl rospoot. Lot nio now toll him what I do think, that tho opportunity may bo afforded him of setting mo right if I am wrong. I have no prido for consistency, and am always gratoful for instruction. 'Tho doctrine of Papal infallibility, as now taught by tho highost authorities of tho Catholio Church, is, to my mlod, simply absurd—and I am not dispoMod to speak of it in harsher terms. Tho claim that infallibility exists in tho collective c/iucc/i, that is, in (ionoral Councils, representing the entire body of tho church, is comprehensible enough. It was placed thoro by sovoral of thsso councils, by tho whole Uallican, or French Church, and by such distinguished authors as

Hossuot, lHi Pin, and others. I fit was rightfully deposited bv all these roBneotablo authorities, then, how can those, in this day, who seok to transfer it to tho Popo alone, escapo tho accusation of being innovators upon tho ancient faith? That it is an innovation is, I think, oasily demonstrated and if "A Catholio Priost" should bo hold to tlio task of proving that it has always been the faith of the church, as lie allegos, ho would Iind liimsolf confronted by fto array of ovldonco tbat would overwholni liiui. lie would, it is truo, tlud many Popos asserting it for themselves, because it promoted their am bitiouB ouds—just as he would find kings and tyrants claiming tho divine right to govern mankind—but ho would not find ono simile scrap of history to show that tho Universal Church evor gave its assent to it until the enactuiout of tho present dogma by tho lato LaAoran Council.

I understand tho interpretation given this dogma to bo, that tho Pope Aiands in the place of (Jod on earth— acting as his vicegerent, and possessing tho divine right to govern all inanklud lu faith and morals that la In whatsoever thoy shall bsliovo aiid do, In all their relations to God, to tioclety, and to the Stato whero they re «ldo. Ho is to be accepted as incapablo of error In all that ho does officially, ez cathedra, because ho occupies God's pUce. This infallibility is full, completo, plenary—just such as Ood himself possessos. It.is a prorog Htlve of tho primary conferred on Peter, and which the Pope derives from him as bis successor and as this primary is personal, so is the prerogative of Infallibility persojial, as well as official. It confers divine powors upon tho Popo, and, henco, recognizes hmi ns possessing tho power, not only to command, but to cocrcs obedience.to all bis docreos coucorning what man kind shall believe, and tho morality of their acta. It holds that tlio Koman Catholic religion is tho only truo relit Jon, that all mankind are obliged, by duty to God, to adopt this obedience to tho Pope, and that ho wi be justified in oxoreisingthisco^t'tpower tocompol this obedience, when over ho shall think It expedient to do so It places States and governments in' the samo altitude as individualsand requires like obedien••Olr0''11J

If their laws aro consistent wltli tiie law of God, as tbo Popo shall It, they aro to bo obeyed, if not to be resisted. It popular governments which luivo suited from revolution, tbo right^to become legitimate, no matter bow long tb»y stand and holding all governments to bo illegitimate which aro not founded upon the law of God, as the Popo interprets it, It regards it as tho I duty of the oburch to overthrow all j*

TERRE

such popular governments, in order that God may be served by tho planting ol tho true faith. It takes away from all tho people tho right to bo consulted about tho laws which are to govern them—makes it their duty tooboy all such laws as the Pope shjill think proper to proscribe, and submit to the execution of thorn by an ecclesiastical hierarchy, responsible only to him. Ilecauso what tho Pope says is infallibly true, it allows nothing to the contrary—denying all liberty of speech, of conscience, and of the press, except tho liberty of conforming to tho absolute will of tho Popo. It requires Protestantism to bo treated :ts HII enemy of mankind—not as a friend to'bo conciliated, but as an accursed adversary to bo overt brown and exterminated. Considering tho Pope as possessing divine powers, it confers upon him alone the right to ih fine their extent,, and whenever ho shall deli no them, howsoever they may relate to governments or individuals, tliey are to bo accepted to that extent, as apart of tho law ol God, and he is to be obeyed accordingly. It requires that all tho PoptH, from the beginning —including both good and bad, even thoso covered all over with crimo, and tried, convicted, deposed, and disgraced, by tho acknowledged authority of General Councils—shall bo considered as infallible. It commands tho approval not only of all thoy havo dono and said, and all that the present Popo may now do and say, butall that overy future I'opo may hereafter do and say. It makes tho assent of the mind to the teachings of the Popo, so blind as to include all that has been dono, and all that may now be doing, and all that may bo dono in the future, in regard to tho faitli And, without further present dotal), it reaches this result —that as our Protestant institutions aro heretical and infidel, and no oath that should bind tlio conscience, can bo taken in favor of heresy and infidelity, thorefore, all oaths of allegiance to tho government ol' tho United States may bo sot asido bv tho divinely dispensing power of tho Popo, whenever ho shall think the Interest of tlio church requires it 1 havo called all this nrw, and it is as ue*v as it is insulting to tlio advanced sentiments and common sense of tho present age. Tho early Hishops of Home set up no such pretences. Neither Christ, nor the Apostles, nor any single Christian of tho ago succeeding tho Apostles, has left a single sentence, lino or word, which can bo tortured into a justification of them. There wero nineteen Kcumonical Councils previous to the late one at Home, and nowhero in any of tho canons tliey have enacted, is Papal infallibility decreed. The faith of tho church was first embodied in a creed by tho Council of Nice, in the fourth century, and yet the Popo of Koine had no moro to do with that Council than tho Hishops of the other churches. It was called by Constantino, tho Emperor, without submitting the quest ion of its proprioty to tho Popo. Tho latter did not attend it, and had no Cardinal or Bishop thoro as legato to preside over it in his name. Its canons bccamo tho law of tho church, not because ho approved them, but beeauso tlio Emporor promulgated them. Tho soven succeeding Councils, embracing a period of about a thousand years in tho history of tho church,woro all held under l'iko imperial sanction. Tho second Council of Constantinople, condemned ono Popo for heresy, and tho third Council, at tho samo place, anathoinatized another for heresy, impioty, and sacrilege. As lato as tho tiftoonlh century tho Council of Constance decreed that it had authority to reform tho church in it.i head and members. Besides burning lluss and Joromo fAr proaeliing heresy, it dodeposed I'opo John XXIII. for irrimes which mado him so infifmous that he has boon called a "devil incarnate," and absolved all Christians from obedienco, fidelity. or allegiance to him. A loss authoritative body than a General Council, composed of tho Cardinals, who assembled at Pisa, condemned and deposed Popes Gregory XII. and Benodict XIII. ns "guilty of enormous iniquities and excesses," and declared tlieni "cut off forover from tlio church, and rejected from tho bosom of God."

Kvon tho colobratod Council of Trent did not venturo todecreo that tho Pone was infallible. I conlbsa that, 111 Illy opinion, it camo protty near it when it duorood Ihnt. woio uveil tllO lives Of tllO ministers of tho church "debased by crime," tliey may still remain within tho church, and lose no part of tho power with which it Invests them 1 By, thus nnUR«"i/-i'K mo teachings of nil runner Councils, it gavo licouso to that impurity which lias encouraged tho Popes in their subsequent claim of infallibility, until it lias culminated in tho present absurd and ridiculous theory of a sort of universal infallibility—that is infallibility in tho Popo and his clergy in teaching, and infallibility in all tlio faithful in bolioving!

And yet, in demonstration of tlio proposition that tlio Popo is tlio only man on earth who is "presorved from error by divlno assistance," I am asked: "Jesus Christ, as man, was ho infallible?" I answer, yes. But what lias that to do with tlio Pope? What does it provo about him? Christ united both tho divino and human nature in himself, and was, therefore, God —man. Doos Catholic priori" mean to say that tho Popo does this? Ills quostion insinuates it. Yot ho had just contradicted tlio insinuation by saying that "to bo infallible is not, necessarily, to bo God." Hut it is, nocessiirilv, to bo like God—which is equivalent. Popo Pius VII. cxpressod thosimio idea, In defining his own infallibility, when, in his reply to Napoleon I., lie said "It is tho will of God, whose place we occupy on earth!" Hy tlio plain rules of logic, this argumont, from thrso premises, is legitimate to bo in the placo of God is to bo equal to God, and lo 1)0 equal to God is to bo God

Hut I am told that before I can rood Papal infallibility, I must controvert successfully many texts of Scripture. What texts With out naming them, and tlioroby proving atlirmatively that this doctrine is established by them, ho challenges mo to provo it negative, lie assumes and dogmatizts, but demands proof from othors. Ho shall not escapo so oasily.

The doctrine Infallibility rests upon tho interpretation given to what Christ said to Peter: "Thou art Petor, and upon this rock I will buiid my church." Tlio argument is this: that primary of both honor and power wero thus conforred upon Peter, that tho church was thorefore built on him alone, and not on Christ, that ho founded tho church at Homo, and was its Bishop for twouty-tive years, and that, consequently, that is tho only truo Church. Tho noxt step is, that, as Peter was an apostle, and infallible, thorofore, all tho Popos, as his successors, aro equally so. And henco, in order to prosorvo and oxtond this church, the Popes must havo power enough to subordinate all other jiower to thoir own, so as to maintain its internal and external organization against tho "world, tho flouh and the devil

I have never been ablo to iind one word of contemporaneous history showing, or teudingto show, that Petor ever was Bishop of liome for a singlo hour. It is a Papal invontion, started long aftor tho Apostolic age. No writer for moro than two huudred years after the doath of Peter, states any such fact. Clement, tho earliest of tho Fathers, who was, himself, Bishop of Rome, makes no such statement. Nor does Ilionysius or Caius, who are qnotedjby Eusebius, or Justin or Iroimnis, or Origon, or Cyprian, or Tortullian. The writings of these fathers como up to about the year 250 yet not one of them asserts the fact that Petei' was Bishop of Borne Some of them speak of Petor and Paul as bav ing, conjoiutly, plantod Christianity in Rome, but nothing about oither of them bqjng Bishop. Why thoir silence about so important a fact? It is pregnant silence which proves more than volumes of dogmatic assertion.

Added to tho other fact that the Now Testament is also equally silent, the vorv absonco of proof becomes conclu BIVO evidence—making the inferenco irresistible that the whole story was tho invontion of a later age. If I am mistaken about

this

absence of evidence

I would bo glad to know it, and will bo thankful for the information. Reading and andostanding history as I do, the wholo thing soems to me the most stu pendous imposture tho world ever witnessod.

This assumed primacy of power

Peter has been tho foundation upon which tho claim of Papal iafallibity has always rested. If it bo, as I insist, merely assumed—without proof, or a word in all the history of the early centuries, to sustain it—it must fall to the ground. Lot tho intelligent inves tigator,whether Protestant or Catholic, make the investigation for bimsolf, and he will bo likely, before going far, to find himself amazed no loss at the shallowness than at the presumption of the claim

I supposo it to bo true that Papal infallibity has been taught for many centuries', but not always, as "A Catholic Priest" says, in Italy. That is tho home of tho Popes, who, sinci they have been accustomed to tho exorcise of power and tho homago which follows it, havo been quite as slow as othor kings to yield up their pretensions. Hut it is equally truo that it lias not been taught, to any groat extent, outside of Italy. In Protestant countries—as in Kngland and the United States—it lias beeu almost universally donicd by tho lait.y,and even avowed vory cautiously, when at all, by the clergy. Somo years ago a distinguished clergyman in lingland wont over to tho Kotnau Catholic Church, and published a book giving his reasons for preferring its principles of "church authority" to tho "royal supremacy" of tho English church. Misleading reason was that tho Divino Spirit has its dwelling in tho "collective body" of tlio Koman Church, and not in tho Popo. That body, which, of course, consists of a Gonoral Council, he says is "our sole guide in tho things of God." This book was afterwards published and circulated in tho United States, under tho patronage of the American hierarchy. Another book, written by a priest, was also published here, wherein it was charged that "tho father of lies" had invented tlio story of tho Pope's infallibility to defame and injure tho church Thoso, wo may supposo,were measures of policy morely, justilied by tho doctrine that whatever tho good of tho church requires may bo proporly done! Thoy must havo boon so sinco wo aro now told that this was all falso teaching. But things havo changed. Tho Papal and Jesuit training in Italy has borno its fruit. Tho lato Liatoran Council was under tho control of the Italian Cardinals and Bishops,and thoy woro so ready to register the edicts ot tlio Popo against tho protest of a large and respectable minority, that tho great end thoy strovo for was accomplished by passing tho decree of Papal infallibility. Tho mask is now thrown off, and ho who, all his life, lias supposed liimsolf to bo a faithful Catholic when maintaining tho belief that infallibility was lodged ill tho colloetivo body of tho church, now finds himself compelled to rest under tho terrible, curses of tho church unless ho shall boiiovo that tlio I'opo stands in tho placo of God on earth "-•I Catholic priest" thinks I misrepresented history when I spoko of tho promise of I'ius IX. to give a new constitution, in a low days, to tho poojilo of Rome, that would \e satisfactory to them, land liis failures to do so. Iio denounces tho peoplo as organized by I he Freemason's admits tho promise, but says it was "wrestod from hi in against his will"—nevertheless, was complied with. I am not surprised at his use of tho word mob—ho oven thinks that tho Freemasons who buried Ilielcoy,tho other day, wero a mob This is tho way tho Papists always talk about peoplo who seek oy revolution to throw off tho yoko of kings who claim tho right to govorn them by divino appointment, and thereby to sccuro political liberty for themselves. Such peoplo aro always outlaws, in thoir estimation, beeauso thoy resist wliat is called tho legitimate authority of thoir self-constituted rulors. They woro especially regarded so in Rome, beeauso they considored tho Papal government oppressive, and dosirod to substitute a governmont of their own for it. They wero willing enough to leavo tho spiritual powor of tho Popo untouched, but did not desiro him to bo king any longer.

Thoyoar 1818 was a year of revolutions in Europo. Tho pooplo, soeing what wo had dono in this country, had beconio rostlcs3 under tlio oppression of monarchical rulo. Thoso of Italy woro intensely agitated. Thoy met together in largo masses, and dotnandod a changoin thoir govornmont. Tliey nshoti »hnt. the laws should be mado dopondont upon their consent—J lisp as thoy aro hero. Popular rovolutions becamo imminont in Austria and Prussia. Franco expelled tho Orleans princes and organized a republic. In Sanle" Vo°

in

ox*

"o'rted. Spoalcing of tho peoplo of Rome, a biographer of Pins IX. says, the people proceeded in an immonso crowd to tho Quirinal, to domanu a now constitution" To this demand tho Popo mado tho promiso stated— that ho would grant tho constitution, a few days. lie said it should bo calcnlatcd to'salisfij the people," understanding, of course, tho kind of constitution they desired. Ho called upon tho Almighty to bless his "desires and labors," and said that if it Bhould advanco tho cause of religion ho would throw himself "at tho foet of tho cruei-' fiodJosus, to thank him for tho ovents accomplished by his will." And ho put so small an estimato upon his temporal powor as to Bay "1 will bo moro satisfied as cliiet of tho universal church than as a temporal Prince, if they turn to tho greatest glory of God."

One would naturally supposo that a man who talked this way, with a solemn appeal to Iloaven, intended what ho said audi should lg justly charged with an impoaclimont of his integrity wero I to say ho did not. Hut "A Catholio Priost" says that all this was "against his will," which, in plain words, moans that he said one thing and intended another I Ho should havo moro respect for tho Popo's personal reputation. To say that ho wus yielding merely to tho menaces of a mob, is to apply to tho peoplo ot Italy such language as tho same haters of ovolution would havo applied to thoso who founded our freo institutions.

Popular government, in so far as the rights of tho pooplo are concorned, moans the samo thing overywhero. It has always grown out of revolution, and always must do so so long as Kings and Popes cling tenaciously to absolute power. It is revolution which has carried forward tho nations to that point of progress and elevation with which tho Papaoy declares it can novor bo reconcilcu. Therefore revolutions, in tho Papal sonse, aro always mobs, beeauso thoy disturb the ancient kingly order. For that reason tho Papal curse rosts upon them. No peoplo can escapo this curse who rise up, as our fathers did, to rosist tho tyranny of absolutism. Kvon tho Fenians of Ireland, evor faithful to tho church, wero anathematize.) by Pius IX. because thoy desired to establsh a free government for their country.

As I understand tho historic facts, tho Popo never granted tho free constitution which tho peoplo demanded, and which ho promised. The yoar before, in 1S47, bo had formed a Senate andCouueil, which was one step in tho work of reform. But this form of government was instituted merely "'to, assist the Pope In tho administration," not to on ablo the pooplo to make their own laws. A government which did nothing mora than "assist tho Pone," was not the kind they desired. They demanded that he should go ono step further, and grant them self-govern, ment, as we have it in tho United States. And thus they understood tlio promise which he made, but did not perform, simply for tho reason, as wo are now told, that it was "against his will" and ho did not intend to perform it! Ho did organize anew ministry, with Rossi at its hoad. Tho people then saw that thoy wero betrayed for, although Rossi had onco been a liberal, he had, under the dictation-of tho King of Frauce, allied liimsolf with the party of retrogression, in order to aid in putting down tho revolution

Ho was assassinated not by tho people, however, but" by an individual who was afterwards found guilty and exe cuted. His death led to tho Pole's flight

)iaco lie issued

to Gaeta, from which the protest referred to he declared that "there is not and can

the protest referred to by me, wherein

n«t

be any legitimate power which does not emanate from us!—that is, from the Pope. He is tho only true source of civil power, because ho stands in God's place! The people had reached tho point of supposing that "legitimate power" in civil aflairs could spring from them, as it doos in this country but the Pope now told them of the falsehood of this herotioal teaching, by instructing them that he alono possessed it! Thus, throwing off all his formor disguise, he mado it plain to be scon what ho intended by tho govern-

ment organized to "assist" him, the year before. This was the grand triumph of Josnitiam, and the people were, necessarily, exasperated in the highest degree. They felt intense indignation at the duplicity of the Pope, and to protect himself against them, ho invoked the aid of Loms Napoleon. This devout son of the church sent a French array to Rome, which restored tbo temporal power of the Pope, and hold him on his throne, nntil Victor Emanuel, in obedience to the voice of the Italian people, shivered his temporal sceptre into atoms. If "Jesus Christ is with bis vicar to confound his enemies," as "A Catholic Priest" exuitingly proclaims, why does he permit these atoms to lie scattered among tho crumbling columns of Rome, ana so many prayers for the .festoratlon of tho temporal power to go unanswered

But I have no wish to pursue this branch of tho subject furthor, at this time and fear that what. I have already said, will occupy an unduo portion of your columns.

A MASTER MASON.

TEMPEST-TOSSED. Theodora Tilton Tnrns Upon liis Traduccrs.

]In Indicts Bccchor as the JUroaker of his Household €loils and the Fell Destroyer of his Onco liappy fifome.

IlitliiiR" the New Name lor it.

MRS. TILTON PLAYS IN THE GAME AS A RELIGIOUS DUTY.

She Sees her Error Through Rending tlio Character of Catharine Gaunt—a Cousin of Griflith

Gaunt, Probably.

Tlio Sphinx Must Speak or Sink.

NEW YORK, July 24.—Gentlemen of the convention, in communicating to yon the dotailed statement of the facts of the evidence which you have been several days expecting at my hands, let me remind you of the circumstances which call thin statement forth in my recent letter lo Dr. Hecon. I alluded to an offense and an apology hy Deccher to whomsoever else this allusion seemed indefinite to Mr. lieechcr, it was plain the oll'esc was committed hy him and the apology hy him both were his own and were among the most niomentuotis occurrences of his life. Of all the men in Plymouth church or in the world, Rev. Henry Ward Beccher was the one. man who was the best informed concerning this offense and apology, and the one limn who least needs to inquire into either nevertheless, while possessing a perfect knowledge of both these acts done by him, he has chosen to put on a public affectation of ignorance and inoccnce concerning them, and has conspicuously appointed a committee of six of the ablest men of his church, together tviih two attorneys to inquire into what he leaves you to roeard as the unaccountable mystery of this ofiense and apology, as if he had neither committed one nor offered the other, but as if both were figments of another man's imagination, thus adroitly prompting the public to draw the deduction that I am a person under some hallucination, living in a dream and forging a fraud furthermore, in order to cast over tliis explanation the delicate glamour which alwas tends to charm, to the defedce of a womans honor. Mrs. Elizabeth R. Tilton, lately my wife, has been prompted away from her home to reside among Mr. Bcecher's friends, and to co-operate with him in his ostensibly honest and laudable inquiry into facts concerning which she, as well as lie, for years past had perfect and equal knowledge with him. This investigation, therefore, has been publicly pressed on mo hy lieechcr, seconded by

Vlrs. Tilton, both of whom in so doing have united in assuming before the public the notf-existenco of the grave and solemn facts, into which tney nave conspired to investigate, for the purpose, not of eliciting, but of denying the truth. This joint assumption, by them by which ititan noemoil to your committee to he in good faith, lias naturally led you into an examination in which von .»T—•* find on their part nothing but innocenso and on my part nothing but slander. It is now my unhappy duty, from which I havo in vain hitherto sought earnestly to be delivered, to give you the facts and evidences for reversing your opinion on this subject. In doing'.this painful duty, I may say heartrending duty, the re. onsibility for making these grave disclosures, which I am about to lay before you, belongs not to me, but first to "Beccher,' who has prompted you to this examination, and next to Mrs. Tilton, who lias joined him in a conspiracy, which cannot fail to be full of 'peril and wretchedness to many hearts. I call you to witness that in my first brief examination by yopr committee, I begged and implored you not to inquire into the facts of the case, but rather to seek to bury them beyond all possible revelation, and happy for all concerned had this entreaty been heeded. It is now too latp, and the last opportunity for reconciliation has past this investigation, undertaken by you in ignorance of dangers, against which Beecher should have warned you in advance, will shortly prove itself to your surprise, to have been an act of wanton and wicked folly, for which Beecher, as its originator and public sponsor, will hereafter find no "space for repentance, though he seek it carefully and with tears." This desperate man must hold himself only, and not me, accountable for tho wretchedness which these disclosures will convey to his own home and hearth, as they havo already brought to mine. I will add that the "original documents referred to in the ensuing sworn statement are for the most part, in my possession, but that the apology and a lew other papers, are in the hands of Francis D. Moulton.

W. Beecher, which friendship was cemented to such a degree that in consequence thereof, the subsequent dishonoring by Beecher of his friend's wife, was coerce of uncommon wrongfulness and perfidity. 3d. That about nine years ago, Rev. H. W. Beecher began, and thereafter continued, a friendship with Mrs. Eliza beth R- Tilion, for whose native delicacy and extreme religious Visibility, he often expressed to her Hband a high admiration, and visiting !rer from time to time for years, nntil the year 1870, when, for reasons hereinafter stated, he ceased such visits, and during which period, by many tokens an aatentions, he won the affectionate loreof Mrs. Tilton, whereby, after along moral

TERRE HAUTE, IND., JULY 23, 1874.

That on the evening of October 10th, 1868, or thereabouts, Mrs. Elizabeth Tilton had intercourse with Rev. Henry Ward Beeehcr, at his residence, sh« being then in a tender state of mind, owing to the recent death and burial of a young child, and during this interview an act of criminal commerce, took place between this pastor and this parishonert the motive on her part being as hereinbefore stated, not regarded by her at the time criminal or wrong, which act was followed by similar acts ot criminality between the same parties at Tilton's lesi dence, and during a pastoral visit paid by Beecher to her on the subseqnent Saturday evening, followed also by other similar acts on various occasions from the autumn of 18G8, to the spring of 1870, the places being the two residences aforesaid, and occasionally other places to which her pastor would invite and accompany herf or at which he would meet her by previous appointment. These acts of wrong being on her part from first to last not wanton or consciously wicked but arising through a blendency of her moral perceptions occasiened by a powerful influ encc exerted on her mind at that time, to this end by Rev. Henry Ward Beecher as her trusted religious preceptor and guide. That personal visits made by Henry Ward Beecher to Mrs. Tilton during the year 18G8, became so frequent as to excite comment, being in marked contrast with his habit of making few pastroal calls on his parishioners, which frequency in Mrs. Tilton's case, is shown in letters written to her hushnnd during his absence in the west. These letters giving evidence that during th»period of live or six weeks twelve different pastoral calls on Mrs. Tilton were made by Rev. Ilenry Ward IJeecher, which calls became noticeably infrequent on Tilton's return lo his home.

G. That previous to the aforesaid criminal intimacy one of the reasons which Mrs. Tilton alleged for her encouragement of such exceptional attentions from Beecher, was first, that she had been much distressed with rumors against his moral purity and wished to coHvincc him that she coul I receive his kindness and resist his solicitations, and that she could inspire in him by her purity an increased respect for women. Previous to the autumn oflSGS, she maintained with christain firmness towards her pastor, this position of resistance, always refusing his amorous pleas, which were strong and oft repeated, and in a letter to her husband, dated February 3d, 1SG8, he wrote as follows: "To love is praiseworthy, but to abuse the gift is sin."

That the first Huspicion which crosscd the mind of Tilton that Beecher was abusing, or might abuse, the affection and reverence which Mrs. Tilton bore towards her pastor, was an improper caress given by Beecher to Mrs. Tilton, while seated by hor side in his library, overlooking the engravings. Mr. T. afterwards asked an explanation of her permission of BUCII liberty. She first dneied the fact, but then confessed it, and said she had spoke chidingly to Beecher concerning it. On another occasion, Mr. Tilton, after leaving tho house in the early morning, returned to it in the forenoon, and on going to his bed chamber, found the door locked, and when on knocking at the door, it was opened by Mrs. T., Beccher was seen within, apparently much confused and exhibiting a flushed face. Airs. Tilton aft«rwardn made a plausible explanation, which, from the confidence reposed in her by her husband, was by him deemed satisfactory. That in the spring of 1870, on Tilton's return from a winter's absence he noticed in his wife such evidence of the absorntion of her mind in Beecher that in a short time an esstrangemcnt took place between them in consequence of which she went into the country earlier than ususual for a summer sojourn. Af ter the absence of several

unfor

Truly yours,

THEODORE TILTON.

TILTON'S SWORN STATEMENT. Whereas, The Rev. II. W. Beecher has instigated the appointment of a committee consisting of six members of his chuich and society to inquire into and rsport upon the alleged aspersions upQn his character by Theodore Tilton, and

Whereas, Mrs. Elizabeth Tilton, formerly wife of Mr. Tilton, has openly deserted her home in erder to co-operate with Beccher in a conspiracy to overthrow the credibility and good repute of her late husband, as a man and citizen, therefore, Theodore Tilton, being thus authorized and required, and by a published demand made on him by Rev. H. W. Beecher, and being now and hereaf ter leleased by the act of Mrs. Tilton, from any further responsibility for the concealment of the truth touching her relations willi Beecher, therefore, Theo. Tilton hereby sets forth, under solemn oath, the following facts and testimony: 1. That on the 2d of October," 1855, at Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, a marriage between Theo. Tilton and Elizabeth M. Richards, Was performed by Rev. H. W. Beecher, which marriage, thirteen years afterwards, was dishonored and violated by this clergyman, through the criminal seduction of this wife, as herein set forth 2. That for a period of fifteen year, extending both before and after this marriage, an intimate friendship existed between Theodore Tilton and Rev. II.

er

ts- .». ''i 11#

resistance by her, and after repeated as- found his wife weeping and in great dispaulta by him upon her mind with over-1 tress, saying that what she had meant for

mastering arguments, accomplished the possession of her person, maintaining with her thenceforward, during the period hereinafter stated, the relation called criminal intercourse this relation being regarded by her during that period, as not criminal or morally wrong, snch had been the power of his arguments as a clergyman, to satisfy his religious scruS&s against such violation of virtnn and honor.

r"° v"'"

ir .ciurueu to her home in Brooklyn on the evening of July 3rd, 1870, and then there within a few hours after her arrival and after exacting from her husband a solemn promise that he would do Rev. Henry Ward Beecher no harm nor communicate to him what she was about to say, she made a circumstantial confession to her husband of the criminal facts hereinbefore stated, accompanied with citations fromBeeclier's arguments and reasonings with her to overcome her long maintained scruples against yielding to his desires, and declaring that she had committed no wrong to her husband, or her marriage vows, quoting, in support of this opinion, that lier pastor had repeatedly assured her that she was spotless and chaste, which Bhe believed herself to be. She further stated that her sexual commerce with him had never proceeded from low or vulgar thoughts, either on her part or his, but from pure affection and high religious love. Site stated furthermore, that Mr. Beecher habitually Characterized their intimacy hy the term "nest hiding," and he would suffer pain and sorrow if his hidden secret were ever made known. She said that her mind was often burdened by the deceit neces-" sary for her to practice, h» order to prevent discovery, and that her conscience had many times impelled her to throw off this burden of enforced falsehood, by making a full confession to her husband, so that she would no longer live before him a perpetual lie. In particular she said that she had been on the point of making this confession a few months previously, during a severe illness when she feared she might die. She affirmed also that Beecher assured her repeatedly that be loved her better than he had ever loved any other woman, and she fdt justified before God in her intimacy with him, save the necessary deceit which accompanied it, and at which she frequent-

in consequence whereof and at the wish of Mrs. Elizabeth B. Tilton, expressed in writing in a paper put into the hands of Frances D. Moulton with a vie* to procure an harmonious interview betwean Tilton and Beecher. Such an interview was arranged and carried out by Moulton, at his then residence on Clin'.on street, Beecher and and Tilton, meeting and speaking then and there for the first time since Mrs. Tilton's confession, six months before. The paper in Moulton's hands was a statement by Mrs. Tilton, of the substance of the confession which she had before made, and of her wish and prayer for a reconciliation and peace, between her pastor and her husband. This pa furnished to Beecher the first knowledge which he had as yet received, that Mrs, Tilton had made such a confession. At this iriterview between Beecher and Tilton, permission was sought by

Beecher to consult with Mrs. Tilton »n that same evening. This permission being granted, Beecher departed from Mr. Moulton's house, and in about half an hour returned thither expressing his remorse and shame and declaring that his life and work seemed to be brought to a Budden end. Later in the same evening, Tilton, on returning to, his house

peace had only given pain and anguish, and that Beecher had called on her declaring that she had slain him, and that he would probably be tried before a conncil of ministers, unless she would give him a written paper for his protection, whereupon «he said he dicta ted to her and she copied in her own hand writing, a suitable paper for him to use to clear him before a council of ministers. Mrs. Tilton having kept no copy of this paper, her husband asked her to make a distinct statement in writing, of her design and meaning in giving it, when she wrote as follows:

December 30,1870. Midnight. MY DEAR SIR:—I desire to Iaave with you, before going to bed, the statement that II. W. Bcecher called upor. me this evening and asked me if I would defend him against any accusation in the council of ministers, and I replied solemnly that I would, in case the accuser was any other person than my husband. He, (II. W. Beecher) dictated a letter, which I copied as my own, to be used by hi as against any other accuser except my husband. This letter was designed to vindicate Mr. B. against all other per sons, save only you. I was ready to give him this letter, because he said with pain. that my letter or your hands addressed to him, dated December 29, had struck him dead and ended his usefulness. Yoti ami I are pledged to do our best to avoid publicity. God grant we may end all further anxieties.

ELIZABETH.

DECEMBER 30, 1170.

I -rave the letter implying my friend, II. W. Beccher, under the assurances that that would remove all the difficulties between nic and my husband. Th:}t letter I now revoke, I was persuaded to it, almost forced, when I was in a weak state of mind—I regret it and recall all its statements.

E. R. TILTON.

On the next day, Deceinner 31, 1870, Moulton, on being informed by T^of the above transaction by B., called on him, (B.) at his residence and told him that a reconciliation seemed suddenly made impossible by Mr. Beecher's nefarious "act in procuring the letter which Mrs. Tilton had written and Beecher promptly, through Moulton, returned the letter to Tilton with an expression of shame and sorrow, for having procured it in the manner he did. The letter was as follow*:

I desire to say explicitly, that Mr. Beccher has never offered any improper solicitation, but always treated me ill a manner becoming a christian.

EMZAUETII R. TII.TON.

At tho time of Beecher's returning the above document to Tilton through Moulton, Beccher requested Moulton to call at his residence on Columbia street the next day, which he did, on the evening of January 1st, 1871. A long interview then ensued, in which Becchfcr expressed to Moulton great contrition and remorse for his previous criminality with Mrs. T., taking to himself shame for having so done, and pressing the determination to kill himself in case of exposure, and begged Moulton totakoa ieu and receive from him an apology, to je conveyed to Tilton, in- hope that such appeal would secure Tilton's forgiveness. The apology which Beecher dictated to Moulton, was as follows:

In trust withF. D. Moulton: My dear friend Moulton: I ask through you Theodore Tilton's forgiveness, anji I humble myself before him as I do before my God. lie would have been a better man in my circumstances than I have been. I can ask nothing except that he will remember all the other breasts that would ache. I will not plead for myself I even wish that I were -dead. But others must live to suffer. I will die before any one but myself shall be inculpated. All my thoughts are running out toward my fiiends, and towards the poor child lying there and praying with her folded hands. She is guiltless, sinned against bearing the transgressions of another. Her forgiveness I havo. I humbly pray to put into the heart ot her husband to forgive me. I have trusted this to Moulton in confidence.

Signed. HENRY WARD BEEC In the above document the lastsening of°tTic Rev. ilenry Ward Beecher. 11. That Mrs. Tilton wrote the following letter to a friend: 174 LIVINGSTONE STREET, BROOK"174.

LYM, January 5th, 18'

DEAR FRIEND:—A cruel conspiracy has been formed against my husband in which my mother and Mrs. Beecher have been chief actors. Yours truly, (Signed) ELIZABETH R. TILTON. 12. That in the following month, Moulton wishing to bind Tilton and Beecher by mutual expressions of a good spirit, elicited from them the following correspondence:

BROOKLYN, February 7,1871.

MY DEAR FRIEND: In several conversations with you, you have asked about piy feelings toward Beecher, and yesterday you said the time had come when you woul^ like to receive fr»{m me an expression of this kind in writing. I say, therefore, very cheerfully, that notwithstanding the great suffering which he has caused to Elizabeth and myself, 1 bear him no malice, shall do him no wrong, shall discountenance every project, by whomsoever proposed, for any exposure of his seoret to the public, and it I know myself at all, shall endeavor to act toward Mr. Beecher as I would have lilm, in similar circumstances, act toward me. I ought to add that your own good offices in this case have led me to higher moral feelings than I might otherwise have reached.

Ever yours affectionately, (Signed,) THEO. TILTON. To Frank Moulton. On the same day, Bcecher wrote to Moulton the following:

FEBRUARY 7,1871.

FRIEND MOULTON:—I am glad to send you a book, etc. Many, many friends lias God raised up to me, but to no one of them has he ever given the opportunity and the wisdom to serve me as you have. You have also proved to be a friend to Theodore and Elizabeth. Does God look icr an these? la it not an intimation of God's intent of mercy to all, that each one of these have a friend in you—a true and proved friend. But only in you are we united. Would to God, who orders all hearts, that by his kind mediation, Theodore, Elizabeth and I could be made friends again. Theodore will have the hardest task in such a case, but has he net proved himself capable of the noblest things? I wonder if Elizabeth knows how generously he has carried himself toward me? Of course I can never speak with her again without his permission and I don't know that even then, it would be best.

Iv suffered in her mind 9 That after the above named con- down from heaven.jpon 1 wion by Mrs. Elizabeth R. Tilton, she creatures who more need a friend thar fession by returned te the country lo await such action by her husband as he might sec fit to take, whereupon after many considerations, the chief of which was that she had not voluntarily gone astray but had been artfully misled through religio is reverence for Henry Ward Beacher, her spiritual guide together also lrom a desire to protect the family from open shame, Tilton condeued the wrong and he addressed to his wife such a letter of affection, tenderness and respect as he felt would restore lier wounded spirit and which did partially produce that result. 10. That in December 180, differences arose between Theodore Tilton and Henry C. Bowen, which were augmented by Henry Ward Beecher and Mrs. Beech­

Mr. Moulton on the same day asked Tilton if he would permit Beecher to address a letter to Mrs. Tilton, and Tilton replied in the affirmative, whereupon Beecher wrote as follow:

BROOKLYN, February 7,1871

MY DEAR MRS. TILTON: When I saw you last didn't expect ever to see yon again, or to be alive many davs, but God was kinder to me than were'my own thoughts. The friend whom God sent to roe (Moulton) has proved above all friendB that I ever had, able and willing to help in this terrible emergency of my life, his hand it was tbat tied up the storm that was ready te burst on our heads. You have no friend (Theodore excepted) who has it in his power to serve you s« vitally, and who will do it with such delicacy and honor. It does my sore heart good to Bee in Mr. Moulton an unfeigned respect and honor for you. It would kill me if I thought otherwise.

He will be as true a friend to yonr honor and happiness as a brother could be to a sister. In him we have a common

f'lie

round. You and I may meet in him. past is ended, but is there no tutu re? no wiser, higher, holier future? May not this friend stand as a priest in the new sanctuary of reconciliation, and mediate and bless Theodore and my most unhappy self. Do not let my earnestness fail of it, and you believe in my

judgment. I have put myself wholly and gladly in Moulton's hands, and there I must meet you. This is sent with Theodore's consent, bnt he has not read it. Will you return it to me by his own hand, I am very earnest in this wish for all our sake*, as such a letter ought not to be subject to even a chance of miscarriage.

Your unhappy friend, H. W. BEECIIER. That about a year after Mrs. Tilton's confession, her mind remained in the fixed opinion that her criminal relations with Beecher had not been morally wrong. So strongly had he impressed her to the contrary, but at last a change took place in her convictions on this subject, as noted in the following letter addressed by her to her husband:

SCHOHARIE,June £9, 1871.

MY DEAR THEODORE:To-day, through the ministry of Catharine Gaunt, a char acter of fiction, my eyes have been opened for tho first time in my experience, so that I see clearly. My sin it was when I knew that I was loved, to sufler it to grow to a passion. Virtuous women should chcck instantly, an absorbing love, but it apperred to me in such a false light, that the love I felt and received could harm no one, not even you. I have believed unfalteringly, until four o'clock this afternoon, when a heavenly vision dawned upon me. I see now, as never before, the wrong I have done you and hasten immediately to ask your pardon, with a penitence so sincere that henceforth, if reason remains, you may trust me implicitly, Oh, my dear Theodore. Though your opinions are not restful or congenial to my scul, yet my own integrity and purity are sacred and holy things to me. I'less God with me, for Catherine Gaunt, for all sure leading-t of an allwise providence. Yes, now I feel quite prepared to renew my marriage vow with you, to keep it as our saviour requireth, who lookcth at the eye and heart. Never before could I say this. When you yearn toward me with a true feeling, ho assured of the tried, purified and restored love of

dal which he had labored to suppress. 15. On the third day thereafter, Rev. T. K. Beecher wrote as follows:

ELMIRA, N, Y., NOV. 24.

Mrs. Woodhull only carries out the honors of philosophy against which I recorded my protest twenty years ago.

IGth. That in May, 1873, the publication by one ot the partners of the triptite covenant between Bowen, Beecher and Tilton, led the press of the country to charge that the latter hail committed against Beeoher some heinous wrong, which Beecher had pardoned, whereas, truth was the reverse. Mr. Moulton requested Beecher to prepare a suitable card, relieving Tilton of this injustice. In answer to this request,Beecher pleaded his embarrassments, which prevented his saying anything, without bringing himself under suspicion. Tilton then proposed to prepare a card of his own, containing a few lines from the apology, for the purpose of showing that Beecher, instead of having had occasion to forgive, had occasion to be forgiven by Tilton. Beecher then wrote a letter to Moulton, which, on being shown to Tilton, was successful in appealing to Tilton's feelings. Beecher said in it, under date,

SUNDAY MORNINCJ, June 1st, 1873. My Dear Frank: I am determined to make no more resistence. Tilton's temperment is such that the future, if even temporarily earned, would be absolutely worthless, and rendering me liable at any hour of the day to be obliged to stultify all the devices by which we saved ourselves. It is only fair that he should know that the publication of the card wliice he proposes, would leave him worse off than before. The tripartite agreement was made after my letter, through you to him, viz. the "apology," was written he had had it a year. He had condoned his wife's fault. lie h%nd enjoined upon me with the utmost earnestness, not to betray his wife, nor leave bis children to a blight. With such a man as Theodore Tilton, there is no possible salvation f«r any that depend on him. With a strong nature, he does not know how t« govern it. There is no uae in talking further. I have a strong feeling on me that this shall be my last sermon.

The hopelessness of spirit which the foregoing letter portrayed" on the part of its writer, led Tilton to reconsider the question of defending himself at the cost of producing misery to Beecher, which determination by Tilton to allow the prevailing calumnies against himself to go unanswered, was further strengthened by the following note, two days after, from the oificeef the editor of the Beecher Journal: 128 EABT 12TH ST.,June 4, 1873. MY DEAR THEODORE:

May I tell you frankly that when I saw you last, you did not rtem to be the noble young man who inspired my warm affection so many years ago. You were yielding to an act which you could not help,thinking would be dishonorable, and although it is easy for me to make every allowance for the circumstances that had brought you to such a freo2y

my

dear Theodore, let me as

-friend, tell you that you were

then

acting ignobly, and that you can never have true peace of mind^ until you conqner you rself anddi3miss all pnrpooe of injuring the man who has wronged you. Of all the promises our lips can frame none are so sacred as those we make to those who have injured us, and whom we have professed to forgive, and they are sacred just in proportion as their violation would work injury to those to whom they are made. You can't paint too blackly^ the wrongs you have suffered pn that point, I make no plea in abatement, but I beg you to .t iL* Ln

*w

ELIZABETH.

Mrs. Tilton followed the above letter with these: JULY I, 1871. O MY DEAR HUSBAND:

May you never know the miseries of being misled hv a good woman as 1 was by a good man. (NO DATE

I would mourn greatly if my life was to be made known to my father, his head would be bowed indeed to the grave. (NO DATE.)

Don't think my ill health is on account of my sin and its discovery, my sins and life record I have carried to my Savior. No, my prostration is owing to the suffering I have caused you. 14. That about one year after Mrs. Tilton's confession and about half a year after Beecher's confirmation of the same, Mrs. V. C. Woodhtill, then a total stranger to Tilton, save that he had been presented to her in company of friends a few days previous, wrote in the WorlJ Monday, May 22, 187J, the following statement, namely:

I know of one man, a jniblic teacher of eminence, who lives in concubinage with the wife of another teacher, of almost equal eminence. All three concur in denouncing offences against morality. I make it iny business to analyze some of these lives. Signed,

VICTORIA C. WOCDHULL.

NEW YORK, May 20,1871. On the day of the publication of the above card in the World,

law which makes forgiveness noble and god like. I have prayed for yon night and day, with strong crying and tears, beseeching God t» restrain you from wronging yourself by violating your sol emn ongagements. To-night fam happy in the thought that you have been preserved from committing the act which I so much dreaded.

In the letter written by Beecher, in order to be shown to Tilton, Beecher spoke as follows:

No man ca'n see the difficulties that environ me, unless he stands where I do. To say that I iiave a church on my hands is simple enough, but to have the hundreds and thousands of men pressing me to expose, with his keen suspicion or anxiety or zeal to see the tendencies, which, if not stopped, would break out in a ruinous defense of me. To stop them without seeming to do it, to prevent any one questioning me, to meet and i.llay prejudices against Tilton,which had their beginnings years before, to keep serene, as if I was not alarmed or disturbed, to bo cheerful when I was sufiering the torments of the damned, to pass sleepless nights, often and yet to come up fresh and fair for Sunday. All this may be talked about but the real things can't be understood from the outside, nor its wear and grinding on the nerves.

In still another letter, written for the same purpose, as above, Beecher said: "Ifmv destruction would place liini (Tilton) all right, that shall not stand in the way. I am willing to step down and out.

No one can offer more than that, and that I do offer. Sacrifice me if you can clearly see your way to bin safety and happiness thereby. In one point of view I could desire the sacrifice in part. Nothing can possibly be so bad as the power of greatness. Life would be pleasant if I could set that rebuilt which is shattered."

But live on the sharp and ragged edge of anxiety, remorse, fear, despair, anil yet to put on an appearance of serenity and happiness cannot be endured much longer. 1 am well nigh discouraged. If you cease to trust me, to love nie, I am alone. 1 do not know any person in I lie world to whom I could go.

Mr. Tilton yielded to the above quoted and other similar letters and made no defence of himself against the public odium which attached to liiui the niysterv. 17. That the marriage union between me and Mrs. Tilton, until broken by Beecher, Was of more than common haimony, afiection and mutual respect. Their house and household wero regarded for years hy all their guculs as an ideal homo. As an evidence of the feeing and spirit which this wife entertained for her husband up to the time of her corruption by Beeehcr, the following letters by Mis. Tilton, written only a few months before her loss of honor, will testify:

My

TUESDAY, Jan. 28, 18G8.

BKLOVKD:

Tilton received

from Mrs. Woodhull a request to call'on imperative business at her office, and on going thither, a copy of the above card was put into his hand by Mrs. Woodhull who said that the partien referred to therein were the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher and wife of Theodore Tilton following this acknowledgement Mrs. Woodhull, detailed to Tilton with vehement speech the wicked and injurious story which she published in the year following. Meanwhile Tilton desiring to guard against any temptation to Mrs. Woodhull to pnblish the grossly distorted version which she gave to Tilton anil which she afterward attributed to him, SiV^es^'amf kinclly ""attentions, to influence her to such good will towards him and family as would remove all disposition or desire in her to afllict him with snch publications. Tilton's efforts with Mrs. Woodhull ceased in April, 1S72, and six months after, in November, 1872, she published the RCan-

Don't you know the peculiar phase of Christ's character, as a lover, is so pncious lo me, hecausc of my consecration and devotion to yon. I learn to love you from my love to him. I have learned to love him from loving you. I couple you with him, nor do I feel it one whit irreverent, and as every day I adorn myself consciously as a bride to meet her bridegroom, so in like manner I lift imploring hands, and my soul's love may be prepared. I, with the little girls, after you left us, with overflowing eyes and heart, consecrated ourselves to our work, and to you. My waking thoughts, last night, were of you. My rising thoughts, this morning, were of you. I b'cRsyou I honor, I love you. God sustain ns and help us both to keep our vows.

SATURDAY EVENING, Feb. 1,18G8. O, well I know, as far as I am capable, I lovo you. llow to keep this lire high and generous, is the ideal before me. I am only pe*-fecily_contented and restful when you are with me. These latter months 1 have thought, looked and yearned for the time when you would be at home, with longings.

MONDAY, Feb. 3, 18(58, 9 a. m.

What may I bring to my beloved one this bright morning? _A large, throbbing purpose, to bless and cheer him. Is it acceptable, sweet one?

MONDAY MORNIXO, Feb. 21, 18G8. Do you wonder that I couple your love,

Saviour's.and

rcsence. religion to me with tho I lift you up sacredly and keep you in that exalted and holy place where I reverence re&pect and love wilb the fervency of my whole being. Whatever capacity I have I ofler it to you. The closing lines of your letter are these words. I shall heartily venture again upon a great friendship. Your love shall be enough for the remaining days. That word "enough" seems a Btoicism on which yqu have resolved to live vour lift, but I pray God that he will supply you with friendships pure, and with wifely love, which your great heart demands, withholding not himself as the chief love which consumeth, not though it burns, and whose effects are a perfect rest and pence. Again, in one of your letters you close with "faithfully yours." That word faithful means a great deal. Yes, darling, I believe it, trust it, and give you the same surety with regard to myself. I am faithful to you, have been alawavs, and shall be forever, world without end. Call not thin assurance impious, far there are some things we know are blessed by God.

HOME,Saturday Even'g, Feb. 29, 'G9. Oh, did man ever love so grandly as my beloved, at her friendship's public aflairs, ail fall to naught when I come to vou, though you are in decorah tonight, yet I have felt your iove and am very grateful for it. I had not received a line since Monday and was so hungry and lonesome that I took al! your letters and indulged myself in a feast, but without satiaty, and now I long to pour out into your heart of my abundance. I am conscious ot three jets to the fountain of my soul to the great lover, and yourself to whom, as one I am eternally wedded, my children and the dear friends who trust and love uie. I do not want another long Feparation, and while we are in the flesh let us abide together.

In addition to the above, many other letters by Mrs. Tilton, to her husband, prior to her corruption by Mr. Beecher, servid to show that a christian wife, loving her husband to the extreme degree above set forth, could only^ have been severed from the path of rectitude, by artful and powerful persuasions, clothed in phrases of religion, and enforced by strong appeals from her chief Christian teacher and guide. 18. That the story purporting to explain Beecher's apology as having been written betfause he had offended Mr, Tilton by engaging his wife, and the project of separation from her husband, is false, as will be seen by the following letter, written only thr*e days after the date of the apology, by Mrs. Tilton to

Moulton. 174 LIVINGSTON SR., BROOKLYN, "B71.J

remember that nothing can 'change the tenor was brought from Beecher to

January 18, 1871

MR. FRANCIS D. MOULTON: MY DEAR FRIEND.—In regard to your question, whether I have ever sought a separation from my husband, I indignantly deny that such was ever the fact, as I have denied it a hundred times before. The story that I wanted a separation, was a deliberate falsehood coined by my poor mother, who said she would bear the responsibility of this ami other statements which she might make,

VOL. 6.—NO. 4. WHOLE NO. 264.

and

which shecommunicated to my husband enemv, Mrs. H. W. Beecher, and by her communicated to Bowen. I feel outraged by the whole proceeding, and I am now suffering in consequence, more than lam able to bear. I am yours very truly,

ELIZABETH K. TILTON.

19th. That during the first week in January, 1871, a few days after the apology was written, Beecher communicated to Tilton, through Moulton, an earnest wish that he, Mr. Tilton, would take his family to Europe, and reside there for a term of years,at Mr. Beecher's expense. Similar offers have been since repeated by Beecher to Tilton. In this same channel, a message of kindred

Tilton last summer, by F. B. Carpenter, as will appear from "the following affidavit

Signed, FRANCIS B. CARPENTER. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this ISih day of July, 1874.

Signed, WILLIAM IIYOOCK. Notary Public. Mr Carpenter 111 commnnicating to Tilton the above affidavit, says in a letter accompanying it: "1 have 110 hesitation in giving you the statement, as I understood at the time it was for me to repeat it lo you, ami 1 did so repeat it. It was at this interview that Beecher spoko to me of his apology to vou."

The charge that'1 ilton ever attempted lo levy blackmail on Beccher is false. On the contrary, Tilton has always resented every attempt by Beecher to put hini under pecuniary obligations. 20. Not long after the scandal became public, Mrs. 'lilton wrote 011 a slip of paper and left on her husband's desk the following words: "Now cxposuie has come. My nature revolts to join

with you or standing with ybiii." Through the influence of Beecher's friends the opinion has long beeri^ptnpogaled that the scandal was due to Tilton, and that the alleged facts were mslfcioiiN inventions to revenge himself for the supnosed wrongs done him by Beecher. Many words were spoken by Mrs. Tilton to pnii -e Beecher, which being extensively quoted, thus wns the congregation led to snpposu that Tilton wus the slanderer, and that Mrs. Tilton, was herself authority for the statement.

In iliis way, Mrs. Tilion and one of her rehitinns, have been the chief causes of the great difficulty of suppressing the scandal. She had the habit of saying, "Mr. Tilton believes such and such thiiiys,'' and their names of these things, by vfliv of denial, has been the mischievous way (,|° circulating them. In this way, Tilion has been made to appear defamcr, whereas, lie has made every effort in his power lo niippress the injurious tales which ho has been charged with propagating. On all occasions lie has systematically referred to his wife iu terms favorable to her character further, Tilton would not have communicated to the committee the facts contained in thin statement, except for the pievious course of Beecher and Mm K. K. Tilton to degrade and destroy him in public estimation. 21. That one evening,about two weeks alter the publication of Tilton's letter to Dr. Bacon, Mrs. T., on coming home at a late hour, informed her liusliainl lli^t she had been visited at a friend's house, by a committee of investigation, and she had given a sweeping evidence, acquitting Tleecht ot every charge. This was the. lirst intimation which Tilton had received that any such committee was in existence. Furthermore, Mrs. Tilton Rtated that shw had done this by the advice of 11 lawyer whom lieechcr had went to her, and who, in advance of her appearance before the committee, arranged with hor tho questions and answers which were to- constitute her testimony in Beechcr'e behalf. On the next day after giving this untrue testimony before the committee she spent many hours of extreme sufiering from

Jiangs

testified falsely. She expressed to her husband the hope that God would fergive her perjury, but that the motive was to save Beecher and her husband, and also to remove all reproach from the cause of religion. She also expressed a similar contrition to one of her intimate friends. Finally that in addition to the foregoing facts, evidences and confirmations could, be adduced, if needed, to prove the following statement, viz: That II. ^W. Beechor, as pastor and friend of Mr. Tilton and JIIH family, trespassed upon the sanctity of frfentlnhjn and hospitality in long endeavor^ to seduce Mra.^ K^j^autiiority with her, she being hispupfl in' religion, ho accomplished this seduction, and tiiat for tho period of year and a half, or thereabouts, he maintained criminal intercourse with her, overcoming her previous modest scruplGs against such conduct by investing it with a falso justification and as being sanctioned by love and religion. That lie then participated in a conspiracy to degrade Theodore Thilton before the public, by the loss of his place of business and repute that be abused Mr. Tilton's forgiveness and pledge of protection by thereafter authorizing a scrieHof measures by Plymouth church, having for their object the putting of a stigma on Tilton before the church, and also before an ecclestical council, insomuch that the moderator of that council, interpreting these acts by his church, who declared Beecher to be the most magnanimous of men, and Tilton, a knave and when thereafter Tilion, not in malice, but for self protection, wrote a letter to Dr. Bacon, alluding therein to an offense and apology by the Rev. II. W. Beccher, he (Mr. Beecher) defiantly appointed a committee of his church members to inquire into the injury done him by Mr. Tilton by the aforesaid allusion, and implying that he (Mr. Beecher) had never been the author of such offence andajKilogy, and that Mr. Tilton was a slanderer. That to make this inquiry bear grievously against Mr. Tilton, Mr. Beecher previously connived with Mrs. E. R. Tilton to give false testimony in his (Mr. Beecher's) behalf. That Mr. Beecher's course toward Mr. Tilton and family, has at last resulted in the open destruction of Mr. Tilton's household and home, and the desolation of his heart and life.

Signed, THEODORE TILTON. Sworn to before me this 20th day ol July, 1874.

THEODORE BUROMYER, Notary Public.

GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE: Having laid before you the above statement which I have purposely restricted to the relations of Mr. Beccher with Mrs. Tilton only, and with 110 other person or persons, I wish to add an explanation due lo yourselves.

In the Golden Age, lately edited by me, a suggestion was made, not with my consent or knowledge, that your committee in order to be justly constituted should comprise in addition to tho six members appointed by Mr. Beecher, six others appointed by myself. To no such purpose would I have consented, for I have never wanted any tribunal whatever for the investigation of this subject, neither your committee as at present constituted, nor an enlarged committee on the plan just mentioned, nor any other committee of any kind, could, in and of itself, have persuaded or compelled me to lay before you the facts contained in the preceding statement. Distinctly be it understood that these facte have not been evoked by your committee,because of any authority which I recognize in you as a tribunal of inquiry, nor would they have been yielded up to any other committee or board of references however constituted, except a court of law,but on the contrary,

I have divulged the above solely because of openly published demands for it, made directly to me by Rev. H. W. Beecher, aided and abetted by Mrs. E. R. TiltoD. These two parties—these alone—and not your committee, have, by their actions, prevailed with me. No other authorities or influence,except a court of law, could have been powerful enough to have extorted from me'the above. For the sake of one of these parties, gladly would I have continued tohide these facts in the future as 1 have* incessantly striven to do in the past but? by thejoint action of Mr. Beecher and Mrs. Tilton, 1 can withhold the truth only at the price of perpetual infamy to my name, in addition to the penalty which I already suffer, in the deatruc-i of a home once as pleasant as any ln|

which you yourselves dwell. Respectfully, THZODORX TILTON.

3*71*:

of conscience at having

1

HOME. N. Y.

On Sunday, July 1, 1S73, two days after the surrepitious publication of the tripatrite covenant between Henry Ward Beecher, Henry/). Bowen Theodore Tilton, I walked with Mr.. Beecher from Plymouth church to the residence of F. IX Moulton. On the way to Moulton's house Mr. Beecher said to me that if Tilton would stand by him, he would share his fame, his fortune aud everything he possessed with him (Tilton).

"vS!

•&

1