I am not now afraid that I shall be called insane, if I avow my belief that Christ died for all mankind, and that this atonement will be effectual in saving all mankind from endless torment--that good will ultimately overcome all evil--that G.o.d's benevolent purposes concerning his creatures will never be thwarted--that no rebellious child of G.o.d's great family will ever transcend his ability to discipline into entire willing obedience to his will. Can I ever believe that G.o.d loves his children less than I do mine? * * * And has G.o.d less power to execute his kind plans than I have? Yes, I do and will rejoice to utter with a trumpet tongue, the glorious truth, that G.o.d is infinitely benevolent as well as infinitely wise and just.

Mrs. Fisher, what can have tempted us ever to doubt this glorious truth?

And do we not practically deny it, when we endorse the revolting doctrine of endless punishment? I cannot but feel that the Bible, literally interpreted, teaches the doctrine of endless punishment; yet, since the teachings of nature, and G.o.d's holy character and government, seem to contradict this interpretation, I conclude we must have misinterpreted its holy teachings. For example, Jonah uses the word everlasting with a limited meaning, when he says, "thine everlasting bars are about me."

Although to _his_ view his punishment was everlasting, yet the issue proved that in reality, there was a limit to the time he was to be in the whale's belly. So it may be in the case of the incorrigible; they may be compelled to suffer what _to them_ is endless torment, because they see no hope for them in the future. Yet the issue will prove G.o.d's love to be infinite, in rescuing them from eternal perdition.

Again, Mrs. Fisher, my determination and aim is, to become a perfect person in _Christ's_ estimation, although by so doing, I may become the filth and off-scouring of all perverted humanity. What consequence is it to us to be judged of man's judgment, when the cause of our being thus condemned by them as insane, is the very character which ent.i.tles us to a rank among the archangels in heaven?

Again, I am calling in question my right to unite myself to any Church of Christ militant on earth; fearing I shall be thereby entrammelled by some yoke of bondage--that the liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free may thus be circ.u.mscribed. There is so much of the spirit of bigotry and intolerance in every denomination of Christians now on earth, that they do not allow us an open Bible and an unshackled conscience. Or, in other words, there are some to be found in almost every church, to whom we shall become stumbling blocks or rocks of offence, if we practically use the liberty which Christ offers us. Now what shall I do? I do want to obey Christ's direct command to come out from the world and be separate, while at the same time I feel that there is more Christian liberty and charity out of the Church than in it. I am now waiting and seeking the Spirit's aid in bringing this question to a practical test and issue.

And, Mrs. Fisher, I fully believe, from G.o.d's past care of me, that he will lead me to see the true and living way in which I ought to walk. I will not hide my light under a bushel, but put it upon a candlestick, that it may give light to others. I will also live out, practically, my honestly cherished opinions, believing "that they that _do_ his commandments shall _know_ of the doctrine." I also fully believe that the more fully and exclusively I _live out_ the teachings of the Holy Spirit, the more persecution I shall experience. For they that will live G.o.dly, in Christ's estimation, "shall suffer persecution."

Mrs. Fisher, I fully believe that Christ's coming cannot be far distant.

His coming will restore all things, which we have lost for his sake. Our cause will then find an eloquent pleader in Christ himself, and through our Advocate, the Judge, Himself, will acknowledge us to be his true, loyal subjects, and we shall enter into the full possession of our promised inheritance. With this glorious prospect in full view to the eye of faith, let us "gird up the loins of our mind." In other words, let us dare to pursue the course of the _independent thinker_, and let us run with patience the race set before us. Let us carry uncomplainingly the mortifying cross, which is laid upon us, so long as G.o.d suffers it to remain; remembering that it is enough for the servant that he be as his Master. For "as they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also."

"Be of good cheer." Mrs. Fisher, "I have overcome the world." Blessed consolation! Mrs. Fisher, the only response I expect to get from this letter, is your silent heartfelt sympathy in my sorrows. No utterance is allowed for my alleviation. And the only way that I am allowed to administer consolation through the pen is by stratagem. I shall employ this means so far as lies in my power, so that when the day of revelation arrives, it may be said truthfully of me, "she hath done what she could."

Impossibilities are not required of us.

Please tell Theophilus, my oft repeated attempts to send him a motherly letter, have been thwarted. And he, poor persecuted boy! cannot be allowed a mother's tender, heartfelt sympathy. O, my G.o.d, protect my precious boy!

and carry him safely through this pitiless storm of cruel persecution. Do be to him a mother and a sister, and G.o.d shall bless you. Please deliver this message, charged to overflowing with a mother's undying love. Be true to Jesus. Ever believe me your true friend and sympathizing sister,

E. P. W. PACKARD.

THIRD QUESTION.

"Do you think, Mrs. Packard, that your husband really believes you are an insane person?"

I do not. I really believe he knows I am a sane person; and still, he is struggling with all his might to make himself and others believe this delusion, because his own conscience is accusing him constantly with this lie against it. With all his acc.u.mulated testimonials that I am insane, and all his sophistries and reasoning upon false premises to establish this lie, he cannot silence this accusing monitor within himself, testifying to the contrary. Either this is in reality the case, or he has at last reached that point, where a person has made such a sinner of his own conscience as to believe his own lies; or, in other words, he has so perverted his conscience as to become _conscientiously wrong_. But it is not for me to judge his heart, only from the standpoint of his own actions, and from this basis, I give the above as my honest opinion on this point.

Two facts alone may be sufficient to give some corroboration in support of this opinion. After taking me from my asylum prison, and while his prisoner at my own house, he asked me to sign a deed for the transfer of some of his real estate in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, and finding I could not be induced to do it, without returning to me my note of six hundred dollars he had robbed me of, and also some of my good clothing, he sought to transfer it, as the law allows one to do, in case the needed witness is legally incapacitated by insanity to give their signature; and for this purpose he was obliged to take an _oath_ that I was insane. He did take this oath that I was insane, and thereby outlawed as a legal witness. It was administered by Justice Labrie. A few days after this, he called this same Justice in to our house to witness my signing this deed, and used it as a valid signature. Now to say under oath one thing one day, and to deny it the next, is rather crooked business for a healthy Christian conscience to sanction.

Another fact. When he was preparing to put me into an Insane Asylum, I asked him why he was so very anxious to put the stigma of insanity upon me, when he knew I was not insane? Said he, "I am doing it so that your opinions need not be believed. I must protect the cause of Christ."

Cause of Christ! I felt like exclaiming, if _your_ cause of Christ needs _such_ a defence, I think it must be in a sad condition. If it can't stand before the opinions of a woman, I shouldn't think a man would attempt to protect it! The truth is, the cause of Christ _to him_ is his creed--a set of human opinions. While the real cause of Christ is _humanity_; and a very important part of this cause of Christ to a true man, is the protection of his own wife.

FOURTH QUESTION.

"Could you forgive Mr. Packard, and live with him again as his wife?"

Yes, I could, freely, promptly and fully forgive him, on the gospel condition of _practical repentance_. This condition could secure it, and this alone. As I understand Christ's teachings, he does not allow me to forgive him until he does repent, and in some sense make rest.i.tution. He directs me to forgive my brother _if he repent_--yea, if he sins and repents seventy times seven, I must forgive as many times. But if he does not repent, I am not allowed to forgive him. And so long as he insists upon it, both by word and deed, that he has done only what was right for him to do, and that he shall do the same thing again, if he has a chance to, I do not see any chance for me to bestow my forgiveness upon a penitent transgressor.

He feels that I am the one to ask forgiveness, for not yielding my opinions to his dictation, instead of causing him so much trouble in trying to bring me under subjection to his will, in this particular. He does not claim that I ever resisted his will in any other particular--and I have not felt it my duty to do so. I had rather yield than quarrel any time, where conscience is not concerned. He knows I have done so, for twenty-one years of married life. But to tell a lie, and be false to my honest convictions, by saying, I believed what I did not believe, I could not be made to do.

My truth loving nature could never be subjected to falsify itself--I must and shall be honest and truthful. And although King David said in his haste, "all _men_ are liars," I rejoice he did not say all _women_ were, for then there would have been no chance for my vindication of myself as a _truthful_ woman! This one thing is certain, I have been imprisoned three years because I could not tell a lie, and now I think it would be bad business for me to commence at this late hour.

I cannot love oppression, wrong, or injustice under any circ.u.mstances. But on the contrary, I do hate it, while at the same time I can love the sinner who thus sins; for I find it in my heart to forgive to any extent the _penitent_ transgressor. I am not conscious of feeling one particle of revengeful feeling towards Mr. Packard, while at the same time I feel the deepest kind of indignation at his abuses of me. And furthermore, I really feel that if any individual ever _deserved_ penitentiary punishment, Mr.

Packard does, for his treatment of me. Still, _I_ would not inflict _any_ punishment, upon him--for this business of punishing my enemies I am perfectly content to leave entirely with my Heavenly Father, as he requires me to do, as I understand his directions. And my heart daily thanks G.o.d that it is not my business to punish him. One sinner has no right to punish another sinner. G.o.d, our Common Father, is the only being who holds this right to punish any of his great family of human children.

All that is required of me is, to do him good, and to protect myself from his abuse as best I can; and it is not doing him good to forgive him before he repents. It is reversing G.o.d's order. It is not to criminate him that I have laid the truth before the public. Duty demands it as an act of self-defence on my part, and a defence of the rights of that oppressed cla.s.s of married women which my case represents. I do not ask for him to be punished at any human tribunal; all I ask is, protection for myself, and also the cla.s.s I represent.

One other fact it may be well here to mention, and that is: I have withdrawn all fellowship with him in his present att.i.tude towards me. I do not so much as speak or write to him, and this I do from the principle of self-defence, and not from a spirit of revenge. I know all my words and actions are looked upon through a very distorted medium, and whatever I say or do, he weaves into capital to carry on his persecution with. And I think I have Christ's example too as my defence in this course; for when he was convinced his persecutors questioned him only for the purpose of catching him in his words, "he was speechless." I have said all I have to say to Mr. Packard in his present character. But when he repents, I will forgive him, and restore him to full communion.

FIFTH QUESTION.

"In what estimation is Mr. Packard held in the region where these scenes were enacted?"

Where the truth is known, and as the revelations of the court room developed the facts exactly as they were found to exist, the popular verdict is decidedly against him. Indeed, the tide of popular indignation rises very high among that cla.s.s, who defend religious liberty and equal rights, free thought, free speech, free press.

I state this as a fact which my own personal observation demonstrates. In canva.s.sing for my book in many of the largest cities in the State of Illinois, I had ample opportunity to test this truth, and were I to transcribe a t.i.the of the expressions of this indignant feeling which I alone have heard, it would swell this pamphlet to a mammoth size. A few specimen expressions must therefore be taken as a fair representation of this popular indignation. "Mr. Packard cannot enter our State without being in danger of being lynched," is an expression I have often heard made from the common people.

From the soldiers I have often heard these, and similar expressions; "Mrs.

Packard, if you need protection again, just let us know it, and we will protect you with the bullet, if there is no other defence." "If he ever gets you into another Asylum, our cannon shall open its walls for your deliverance," &c.

The Bar in Illinois may be represented by the following expressions, made to me by the Judges of the Supreme Court, in Ottawa Court house. "Mrs.

Packard, this is the foulest outrage we ever heard of in real life; we have read of such deep laid plots in romances, but we never knew one _acted out_ in real life before. We did not suppose such a plot could be enacted under the laws of our State. But this we will say, if ever you are molested again in our State, let us know it, and we will put Mr. Packard and his conspiracy where they ought to be put."

The pulpit of Illinois almost universally condemns the outrage, as a crime against humanity and human rights. But fidelity to the truth requires me to say that there are some exceptions. The only open defenders I ever heard for Mr. Packard, came from the Church influence, and the pulpit.

Among all the ministers I have conversed with on this subject, I have found only two ministers who uphold his course. One Presbyterian minister told me, he thought Mr. Packard had done right in treating me as he had; "you have no right," said he, "to cherish opinions which he does not approve, and he did right in putting you in an Asylum for it. I would treat my wife just so, if she did so!" The name and residence of this minister I could give if I chose, but I forbear to do so, lest I expose him unnecessarily.

The other clergyman was a Baptist minister. "I uphold Mr. Packard in what he has done, and I would help him in putting you in again should he attempt it." The name and place of this minister I shall withold unless self-defence requires the exposure.

When I have added one or two more church members to those two just named, it includes the whole number I ever heard defend, in my presence, Mr.

Packard's course. Still, I have no doubt but that these four represent a minority in Illinois, who are governed by the same popish principles of bigotry and intolerance as Mr. Packard is. And I think it may be said of this cla.s.s, as a Chicago paper did of Mr. Packard, after giving an account of the case, the writer said: "The days of bigotry and oppression are not yet past. If three-fourths of the people of the world were of the belief of Rev. Packard and his witnesses, the other fourth would be burned at the stake."

The opinion of his own church and community in Manteno, where he preached at the time I was kidnapped, is another cla.s.s whose verdict the public desire to know also. I will state a few facts, and leave the public to draw their own inferences. When he put me off, his church and people were well united in him, and as a whole, the church not only sustained him in his course, but were active co-conspirators. When I returned, he preached nowhere. He was closeted at his own domicil on the Sabbath, cooking the family dinner, while his children were at church and sabbath school. His society was almost entirely broken up. I was told he preached until none would come to hear him; and his deacons gave as their reason for not sustaining him, that the trouble in his family had destroyed his influence in that community. Mult.i.tudes of his people who attended my trial, whom I know defended him at the time he kidnapped me, came to me with these voluntary confessions: "Mrs. Packard, I always knew you were not insane."

"I never believed Mr. Packard's stories." "I always felt that you was an abused woman," &c., &c.

These facts indicated some change even in the opinion of his own allies during my absence. As I said, I leave the public to draw their own inferences. I have done my part to give them the premises of facts, to draw them from.

SIXTH QUESTION.

"Mrs. Packard, is your husband's real reason for treating you as he has, merely a difference in your religious belief, or is there not something back of all this? It seems unaccountable to us, that mere bigotry should so annihilate all human feeling."

This is a question I have never been able hitherto to answer, satisfactorily, either to myself or others; but now I am fully prepared to answer it with satisfaction to myself, at least; that is, facts, stubborn facts, which never before came to my knowledge until my visit home, compel me to feel that my solution of this perplexing question, is now based on the unchangeable truth of facts. For I have read with my own eyes the secret correspondence which he has kept up with my father, for about eight years past, wherein this question is answered by himself, by his own confessions, and in his own words.

And as a very natural prelude to this answer, it seems to me not inappropriate to answer one other question often put to me first, namely: "has he not some other woman in view?"

I can give my opinion now, not only with my usual promptness, but more than my usual confidence that I am correct in my opinion. I say confidently, he has _not_ any other woman in view, nor never had; and it was only because I could not fathom to _the cause_ of this "Great Drama,"

that this was ever presented to my own mind, as a question. I believe that if ever there was a man who _practically_ believed in the monogamy principle of marriage, he is the man. Yes, I believe, with only one degree of faith less than that of knowledge, that the only Bible reason for a divorce never had an existence in our case.

And here, as the subject is now opened, I will take occasion to say, that as I profess to be a Bible woman both in spirit and practice, I cannot conscientiously claim a Bible right to be divorced. I never have had the first cause to doubt his fidelity to me in this respect, and he never has had the first cause to doubt my own to him.

But fidelity to the truth of G.o.d's providential events compel me to give it as my candid opinion, that the only key to the solution of this mysterious problem will yet be found to be concealed in the fact, that Mr.

Packard is a _monomaniac_ on the subject of woman's rights, and that it was the triumph of bigotry over his manliness, which occasioned this public manifestation of this peculiar mental phenomenon. Some of the reasons for this opinion, added to the facts of this dark drama which are already before the public, lie in the following statement.

In looking over the correspondence above referred to, I find the "confidential" part all refers to dates and occasions wherein I can distinctly recollect we had had a warm discussion on the subject of woman's rights; that is, I had taken occasion from the application of his insane dogma, namely, that "_a woman has no rights that a man is bound to respect_," to defend the opposite position of equal rights. I used sometimes to put my argument into a written form, hoping thus to secure for it a more calm and quiet consideration. I never used any other weapons in self-defence, except those paper pellets of the brain. And is not that man a coward who cannot stand before such artillery?