HOW G.o.dLINESS IS PROFITABLE

DEACON SMITH--A question was proposed to this cla.s.s, the last Sabbath Brother Dole taught us, and it was requested that the cla.s.s consider and report the result of their investigations at a future session.

May I now bring it up? The question was this:

"Have we any reason to expect that a Christian farmer, _as a Christian_, will be any more successful in his farming operations, than an impenitent sinner--and if _not_, how is it that G.o.dliness is profitable unto all things? Or, in other words, does the _motive_ with which one prosecutes his secular business, other things being equal, make any difference in the _pecuniary_ results?"

Mrs. Dixon gave it as her opinion, at the time, that the motive _did_ affect the pecuniary results.

Now the _practical_ result to which this conclusion leads, is such as will justify us in our judging of Mrs. Dixon's true _moral_ character, next fall, by her _success_ in her farming operations this summer.

My opinion differs from hers on this point; and my _reasons_ are here given in writing since I deem it necessary for _me_, under the existing state of feeling toward me, to put into a written form _all_ I have to say, in the cla.s.s, to prevent misrepresentation.

Should I be appropriating an unreasonable share of time, as a pupil, Mr. Smith, to occupy four minutes of your time in reading them? I should like very much to read them, that the cla.s.s may pa.s.s their honest criticisms upon them.

AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

I think we have no _intelligent_ reason for believing that the motives with which we prosecute our secular business, have any influence in the _pecuniary_ results.

My reasons are _common sense_ reasons, rather than strictly Bible proofs, viz.: I regard man as existing in three distinct departments of being, viz., his physical or animal, his mental or intellectual, his moral or spiritual; and each of these three distinct departments are under the control of _laws_, peculiar to itself; and these different laws do not interchange with, or affect each other's department.

For instance, a very _immoral_ man may be a very _healthy_, long-lived man; for, notwithstanding he violates the _moral_ department, he may live in conformity to the _physical_ laws of his animal nature, which secure to him his physical health. And, on the other hand, a very moral man may suffer greatly from a diseased body, and be cut off in the very midst of his usefulness by an early death, in consequence of having violated the physical laws of his animal const.i.tution. But on the moral plane he is the _gainer_, and the immoral man is the _loser_.

So our success in business depends upon our conformity to _those laws_ on which success depends--_not_ upon the _motives_ which act _only_ on the moral plane.

On _this_ ground, the Christian farmer has no more _reason_ to expect success in his farming operations, than the impenitent sinner. In either case, the foundation for success must depend upon the degree of _fidelity_ with which the _natural laws_ are applied, which cause the natural result--_not_ upon the _motives_ of the operator; since these moral acts receive their penalty and reward on an entirely different plane of his being.

Now comes in the question, how then is it true, that "G.o.dliness is _profitable_ unto all things," if G.o.dliness is no guarantee to success in business pursuits?

I reply, that the profits of G.o.dliness cannot mean, simply, _pecuniary_ profits, because this would limit the gain of G.o.dliness to this world, alone; whereas, it is profitable not only for _this life_, but also for the _life to come_. Gain and loss, dollars and cents, are not the coins current in the spiritual world.

But happiness and misery are coins which are current in _both_ worlds. Therefore, it appears to me, that happiness is the profit attendant upon G.o.dliness, and for this reason, a _practically G.o.dly_ person, who lives in conformity to all the various laws of his entire being, may expect to secure to himself, as a natural result, a greater amount of happiness than the unG.o.dly person.

So that, in this sense, "G.o.dliness is profitable unto all things," to every department of our being.

E. P. W. PACKARD.

MANTENO, March 22, 1860.

Mrs. Packard then stated that the above was presented to the cla.s.s, the 15th day of the following April, and was _rejected_ by the teacher Deacon Smith, on the ground of its being irrelevant to the subject, since she had not confined herself to the Bible alone for proof of her position.

As she took her seat, a murmur of applause arose from every part of the room, which was promptly suppressed by the sheriff.

DANIEL BEEDY, sworn, and says:

I live in Manteno. Have known Mrs. Packard six years; knew her in the spring of 1860. I lived a mile and a half from them. Have seen her very frequently since her return from Jacksonville. Had many conversations with her before she was taken away, and since her return. She always appeared to me like a sane woman. I heard she was insane, and my wife and I went to satisfy ourselves. I went there soon after the difficulties in the Bible cla.s.s.

She is not insane. We talked about religion, politics, and various matters, such as a grey-haired old farmer could talk about, and I saw nothing insane about her.

Mr. BLESSING, sworn, and says:

I live in Manteno; have known Mrs. Packard six years; knew her in the spring of 1860; lived eighty rods from their house. She visited at my house. I have seen her at church. She attended the Methodist church for a while after the difficulties commenced, and then I saw her every Sunday. I never thought her insane.

After the word was given out by her husband that she was insane, she claimed my particular protection, and wanted me to obtain a trial for her by the laws of the land, and such an investigation she said she was willing to stand by. She claimed Mr. Packard was insane, if any one was.

She begged for a trial. I did not then do anything, because I did not like to interfere between man and wife. I never saw anything that indicated insanity. She was always rational. Had conversations with her since her return. She first came to my house. She claimed a right to live with her family. She considered herself more capable of taking care of her family than any other person.

I saw her at Jacksonville. I took Dr. Shirley with me to test her insanity. Dr. Shirley told me she was not insane.

Cross-examination waived.

Mrs. BLESSING, sworn, and says:

Have known Mrs. Packard seven years; knew her in 1860. Lived near them; we visited each other as neighbors. She first came to our house when she returned from Jacksonville. I did not see anything that indicated that she was insane. I saw her at Jacksonville. She had the keys, and showed me around. I heard the conversation there with Dr. Shirley; they talked about religion; did not think she talked unnatural. When I first went in, she was at work on a dress for Dr. McFarland's wife. I saw her after she returned home last fall, quite often, until she was locked in her room. On Monday after she got home, I called on her; she was at work; she was cleaning up the feather beds; they needed cleaning badly. I went there afterward; her daughter let me in. On Sat.u.r.day before the trial commenced, I was let into her room by Mr. Packard; she had no fire in it; we sat there in the cold. Mr. Packard had a handful of keys, and unlocked the door and let me in. Mrs. Hanford was with me. Before this, Mrs. Hanford and myself went there to see her; he would not let us see her; he shook his hand at me, and threatened to put me out.

Mrs. HASLET, sworn, and said:

Know Mrs. Packard very well; have known her since they lived in Manteno; knew her in the spring of 1860; and since she returned from Jacksonville, we have been on intimate terms. I never saw any signs of insanity with her. I called often before she was kidnapped and carried to Jacksonville, and since her return.

I recollect the time Miss Rumsey was there; I did not see anything that showed insanity. I called to see her in a few days after she returned from Jacksonville; she was in the yard, cleaning feather beds. I called again in a few days; she was still cleaning house. The house needed cleaning; and when I again called, it looked as if the mistress of the house was at home. She had no hired girl. I went again, and was not admitted. I conversed with her through the window; the window was fastened down. The son refused me admission. The window was fastened with nails on the inside, and by two screws, pa.s.sing through the lower part of the upper sash and the upper part of the lower sash, from the outside. I did not see Mr. Packard this time.

_Cross-examination._--She talked about getting released from her imprisonment. She asked if filing a bill of complaint would lead to a divorce. She said she did not want a divorce; she only wanted protection from Mr. Packard's cruelty. I advised her to not stand it quietly, but get a divorce.

Dr. DUNCANSON, sworn, and said:

I live here; am a physician; have been a clergyman; have been a practicing physician twenty-one years. Have known Mrs. Packard since this trial commenced. Have known her by general report for three years and upwards. I visited her at Mr. Orr's. I was requested to go there and have a conversation with her and determine if she was sane or insane. Talked three hours with her, on political, religious and scientific subjects, and on mental and moral philosophy. I was educated at and received diplomas from the University of Glasgow, and Anderson University of Glasgow. I went there to see her, and prove or disprove her insanity. I think not only that she is sane, but the most intelligent lady I have talked with in many years. We talked religion very thoroughly. I find her an expert in both departments, Old School and New School theology. There are thousands of persons who believe just as she does. Many of her ideas and doctrines are embraced in Swedenborgianism, and many are found only in the New School theology. The best and most learned men of both Europe and this country, are advocates of these doctrines, in one shape or the other; and some bigots and men with minds of small calibre may call these great minds insane; but that does not make them insane. An insane mind is a diseased mind. These minds are the perfection of intellectual powers, healthy, strong, vigorous, and just the reverse of diseased minds, or insane. Her explanation of woman representing the Holy Ghost, and man representing the male attributes of the Father, and that the Son is the fruit of the Father and the Holy Ghost, is a very ancient theological dogma, and entertained by many of our most eminent men. On every topic I introduced, she was perfectly familiar, and discussed them with an intelligence that at once showed she was possessed of a good education, and a strong and vigorous mind. I did not agree with her in sentiment on many things, but I do not call people insane because they differ from me, nor from a majority, even, of people. Many persons called Swedenborg insane. That is true; but he had the largest brain of any person during the age in which he lived; and no one now dares call him insane. You might with as much propriety call Christ insane, because he taught the people many new and strange things; or Galileo; or Newton; or Luther; or Robert Fulton; or Morse, who electrified the world; or Watts or a thousand others I might name. Morse's best friends for a long time thought him mad; yet there was a magnificent mind, the embodiment of health and vigor.

So with Mrs. Packard; there is wanting every indication of insanity that is laid down in the books. I p.r.o.nounce her a sane woman, and wish we had a nation of such women.

This witness was cross-examined at some length, which elicited nothing new, when he retired.

The defense now announced to the court that they had closed all the testimony they wished to introduce, and inasmuch as the case had occupied so much time, they would propose to submit it without argument. The prosecution would not consent to this arrangement.

The case was argued ably and at length, by Messrs. Loomis and Bonfield for the prosecution, and by Messrs. Orr and Loring on the part of the defense.

It would be impossible to give even a statement of the arguments made, and do the attorneys justice, in the s.p.a.ce allotted to this report.

On the 18th day of January, 1864, at 10 o'clock, P. M., the jury retired for consultation, under the charge of the sheriff. After an absence of seven minutes, they returned into court, and gave the following verdict:

STATE OF ILLINOIS, } _ss._ KANKAKEE COUNTY, }

We, the undersigned, Jurors in the case of Mrs. Elizabeth P. W.

Packard, alleged to be insane, having heard the evidence in the case, are satisfied that said Elizabeth P. W. Packard is SANE.