if my recollection serves me aright, about the year 1835. He landed in Terre Haute, Indiana, on a Friday night, made the acquaintance of a Terre Haute citizen in the hotel, and went with him on a hunting expedition upon the prairie on Saturday. There was only one church in the town, an Old School Presbyterian church of the Southern type, extremely Calvinistic, extremely narrow, and with a very small congregation. The only other preaching place was the Court-House. When any itinerant minister happened that way, the Court-House bell was rung and he preached to such congregation as might chance to gather.

Dr. Jewett's Terre Haute acquaintance was attracted toward him and invited him to preach on the Sunday following their hunting expedition. He accepted the invitation; the bell was rung, a congregation came together, and heard á sermon such as they had perhaps never heard before, for Dr. Jewett was a natural orator, as his subsequent history proved. The people gathered about him at the close of the service, and urged him to remain another week and preach the following Sunday. They answered his objections by saying that he might travel far before he would find a better missionary field than Terre Haute. He yielded to their persuasions, preached the following Sunday, and at the close of the sermon called on all those who were willing to unite in forming a Christian church to meet upon the next day for that purpose.

Something like a score answered the invitation a few men, more women-who had come from different localities and had been brought up in different churches, and whose traditional creeds were widely different. They agreed to form a Christian church. This was not, however, the only support which this church in its cradle was to have. There were business men in the town who desired its prosperity, and who argued, very wisely, that they could not expect immigrants to settle in the town, which had already reached a considerable size, if there were no growing church in it. So they were willing, for real estate and business reasons, to contribute to the cause.

Thus the First Congregational Church of Terre Haute, Indiana, was born by the spontaneous coming together of Christians of different traditional creeds, different temperaments, different religious habits. For ten years this church went on without any

creed of any description. It grew apace. It became the church of the town. It raised the necessary funds to put up a church building adequate for its purpose. Then, partly because it felt the need of fellowship, partly because other Congregational churches had been formed in the vicinity and wished its fellowship, it adopted a simple Congregational creed and became a Congregational church. But when I went there, fifteen years after this creed had been adopted, I did not find that this creed was the real basis of church fellowship. That basis was a common purpose to promote Christian life in the community.

And yet this church had not only the largest and best church edifice in the city, and the widest moral influence; it had sustained for twenty-five years a preacher of rare pulpit power, one who was regarded by many as the rival in eloquence of Henry Ward Beecher, who was then settled over a Presbyterian church in Indianapolis. It had gathered a church membership of some two hundred, and a successful Sunday-school of perhaps two-thirds that number. And under the joint ministry of Henry Ward Beecher and Dr. Jewett revivals had been conducted with remarkable success in western Indiana, affecting not merely the churches of those two pastors, not merely the two cities of Terre Haute and Indianapolis, but also all the region round about.

A

But the bond which united the membership of this church was not a common creed, it was a common purpose to do the Master's work in the spirit of the Master. One illustration of this fact may serve to make the spirit of the church clear to my readers. member of the congregation, brought up as a Quaker, and therefore not believing in the church ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, desired to unite with the church because he desired to confess his faith in Christ. He objected, however, to baptism. I told him that I would submit to the church the question whether they would admit him without baptism. I promised to urge his admission, and I thought it would be granted, though not without objection; but I asked him if he had any objection to baptism if his views on the subject were frankly stated, and he said no. I stated his views to the church; he was unanimously admitted to the church, and received baptism, it being explained at the time to the congregation that he received it as a concession to others, not because it

was in accordance with his views of the teaching of the New Testament.

I was pastor of this church throughout the Civil War, which in that portion of the West was a far greater trial to Christian fellowship than in most Eastern communities. We were not far from the border line; we were surrounded by men who sympathized with the South and hoped for its victory; we were on more than one occasion threatened with raids by Southern cavalry. A considerable proportion of the congregation had come either from Southern or from border States. They were loyal to the Government, but were either in favor of or indifferent to slavery. In fact, I can recall only one family in the church that could have been called anti-slavery according to the New England standards. went there fresh from the inspiration of Henry Ward Beecher's preaching, and carried into the pulpit the lessons which I had learned from him and the spirit with which he had imbued me, though without the eloquence which he possessed. Nevertheless, this church remained united, with only three or four secessions from it, throughout the war, bound together, not by the creed which was in its archives. but by the Christian purpose which had brought its members together and kept them in a brotherhood for ten years without any creed whatever.

I

I

In 1887, on the death of Henry Ward Beecher, I was called at first to supply the pulpit and then to become the pastor of Plymouth Church, to which he by his preaching had given an international reputation. found here a church of somewhat more than fifteen hundred resident members; my recollection is that there were over two thousand on the roll; a church which under Mr. Beecher had a congregation that crowded it to the doors, and in which not only every seat but all standing room was generally occupied ; a church which had enjoyed two or three remarkable revivals, and in which it was rare that a communion season passed without some additions to its membership through conversion; a church which sustained two missionary chapels, with their Sunday-schools and Sunday services, besides its own Sundayschool; a church whose influence for justice and liberty was second to none in the country, and whose membership was in numbers excelled by only one or two. And yet this church had, since 1870, ceased to require the assent of members to its simple creed, which

remained in the records of the church for historical rather than for doctrinal purposes, and had substituted therefor the following simple covenant:

Do you now avouch the Lord Jehovah to be your God, Jesus Christ to be your Saviour, the Holy Spirit to be your Sanctifier? Renouncing the dominion of this world over you, do you conse crate your whole soul and body to the service of God? Do you receive His word as the rule of your life, and, by His grace assisting you, will you persevere in this consecration unto the end?

In the membership of this church were men who theologically believed with John Calvin, or at least in modern Calvinism, and men who believed in the theology of John Wesley; men who believed in infant baptism and men who believed only in adult baptism; men who believed in eternal punishment, men who believed in universal restoration, and men who had no definite belief on the subject; men who believed in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and men who declined to have any opinion on the metaphysical relations of Jesus Christ to the Eternal; men who accepted the verbal inspiration of the Bible and men who regarded the Bible with reverence, but with discriminating reverence, as a revelation of the Father, but a revelation in and through the experience of his children. But all of them agreed in a very sincere desire to learn the truth of life from Jesus Christ and to do Christ's work in the Christ spirit. trials.

This church had been through fiery It had seen its pastor denounced as a heretic, denounced even as a criminal. It had seen the denomination to which it belonged agitated by theological debates which at one time threatened its integrity. It had been the occasion of the greatest Congregational Council ever held in the history of the Congregational body. And yet I venture to say that a more united church was not to be found

anywhere throughout the American Republic. It was united, not by its creed, that is, not by a common opinion, but by its covenant, that is, by a common purpose.

I draw no moral from these two incidents in my own experience. I tell the story, and leave the story to carry its own moral. My Unknown Friends, however, will not perhaps be surprised to know that these experiences have had their effect upon me and have strengthened my conviction that the true bond of unity of a church is not a common opinion but a common purpose and a common spirit. LYMAN ABBOTT.

I

T was once said in. Wall Street that no man could borrow a million dollars in New York City if John Pierpont Morgan decided that he should not have the money. This statement is probably an exaggeration, thinks the New York World,” but it illustrates a condition of things beyond denial. The sole purpose of all these combinations is to control credit through the control of money, and whoever is master of credit is master of the commerce and industry of a nation."

Accordingly, last week Mr. Morgan, as supposedly the most powerful person in the world of finance, was the most prominent witness before the Congressional Committee at Washington which is investigating the question, Is there a Money Trust?"

Mr. Morgan talked frankly, says the correspondent of the New York "American," who adds:

He answered all questions put to him and seemed to hunger for more. He made epigrams. He laughed. At times, when replies that Mr. Morgan did not in the least intend to be funny aroused the audience to mirth, his red face would grow purple. Then he would swing around on his pivoted chair and observe "ha, ha," as solemnly as if he were mentioning a vast sum of money.

Sometimes he went through the motions of laughter without uttering a sound, his mouth opening and closing rhythmically under the great gray mustache that sweeps his heavy jowl.. Driven hard by Samuel Untermyer, who was without awe in the presence of the big game he was stalking, Mr. Morgan was at times cynical, again jocose, anon enthusiastic. But never for a minute did he forget that he was there to talk for the institutions he has helped to build up, and manifestly to resent any imputation that any of them are founded upon the sands of speculation.

Incidentally he gave the listening Congressmen and spectators more light on the point of view of big business than had ever before been shed upon their bewildered minds.

Mr. Morgan was accompanied by his legal counsel, who were described by the New York "World" as follows:

Mr. Morgan went to Washington accompanied by Joseph H. Choate, former Ambassador to Great Britain and the leader of the New York bar; by John C. Spooner, former United States Senator from Wisconsin and now a distinguished New York lawyer; by Francis Lynde Stetson, one of the ablest corporation lawyers in the country; by R. V. Lindabury, the general counsel for the Pennsylvania Railroad Company; by De Lancey Nicoll, who was the attor

ney for the Tobacco Trust in the recent dissolution proceedings; by William F. Sheehan, who was a candidate for United States Senator in New York and is one of the best-known corporation lawyers in the city.

Commenting on this, the Sioux Falls, South Dakota, "Press" says:

J. Pierpont Morgan is perhaps as unpopular in the public eye as any money baron in the history of America, and this despite the fact that he has ever been a willing and unostentatious contributor to charity as well as a powerful factor in the development of art in this country. The reason for his unpopularity is plain. Give him all credit for the good he has done and there still remain many indictments against him for steadfast refusal to do a greater good. Lest he involuntarily or accidentally contribute information of value to the whole country, he protects himself with a squad of legal sentries.

As to the combination of personality and testimony, the Washington " Times" speaks as follows:

History closed one chapter and opened another in our American story when John Pierpont Morgan appeared before the House Committee to talk about money this week. There was a quality of drama in the episode; it was free from climax, but none the less vivid for that freedom. Somehow it was a thing that could have happened only in America, and Mr. Morgan emerges from it as even a larger figure than he was before.

By the tally of the years he is an old man ; by the proof he has just given he is still the master of his thoughts, and his thoughts encompass many things. He has lived a large and a mighty life; he has seen from the inside the making of great history; he has grown as his country has grown, and the spread of his name and his power have kept pace with the march

of ours.

He has done some almost supreme things for art. His gifts to charity have been of the splendid kind. He has built racing yachts and endowed polite learning.

There have been times when his word was a rule of law to three continents. The terms of wealth in which he thinks are beyond the grasp of common minds. .

His schemes have been ambitious beyond the dreams of wealth, too big at times to please a people resentful of intrenched authority.

The Chicago "Evening Post " says:

After his testimony of yesterday the country will, we believe, have a finer feeling toward Mr. Morgan. He talked like a statesman. There was in his testimony no touch of the stock gambler, no suggestion of that ratlike cunning that has marred similar interviews with men who probably have greater fortunes than he. It was all done so quietly, too. In its perfect matter-offactness, its taking it all for granted, it outweighed the explosives of Tom Lawson or the

"big business" novel such as David Graham Phillips used to give us.

For our own part we are willing to say that, if we must have a financial master, we are glad that J. Pierpont Morgan is that master; but we are opposed by tradition and belief to having a master of any kind.

WHAT IS THE GREATEST TRUST POWER?

Of all trusts, the most powerful is the Morgan Money Trust, declares the Louisville "Post." It is made up of steel mills, ore beds, coal mines, banks, insurance companies and trust companies, newspapers, distilleries, flour mills, car works, locomotive works, railroads, ships, docks and terminals-all constituting a financial oligarchy such as the world has never seen.' The paper gives details:

J. P. Morgan & Co. and George F. Baker jointly control the Bankers' and the Guaranty Trust Companies through voting trusts, and George F. Baker controls the First National Bank of New York. Morgan and Baker have been close allies many years. These four institutions, that is to say these two men, are represented in the directorates of 112 corporations with resources of $32,245,000,000. They have 341 directors to do their bidding in these directorates. They have 118 directors in thirty-four bank and trust companies with resources of $2,679,000,000 and deposits of $1,982,000,000; thirty directors in ten insurance companies with assets of $2,293,000,000; 105 directors in 32 transportation systems with capital of $11,184,000,000 and 150,000 miles of railway tracks, which is about three-fifths of all the railway mileage in the United States, not to mention the steamship combination and smaller steamship companies and two express companies; 63 directors in twenty-four industrial and commercial corporations with capital of $3,339,000,000; 25 directors of twelve public utility corporations with capital of $2,150,000,000.

Fourteen other banks and trust companies and banking firms, of which Boston and Chicago each claim two, the remainder being in New York, were deemed worthy of a place beside these in a chart made for the Pujo Committee to illustrate the concentration of banking power in this country. Among these is the National City Bank of New York, dominated by the Standard Oil magnates. The eighteen have 746 directors in 134 corporations with resources of nearly twenty-six billions of dollars.

If this chart is correct, the question whether there is a money trust has been answered.

Mr. Morgan's testimony interested the Springfield, Massachusetts, "Union" mainly on account of the views expressed on the matters treated, not because of the information supplied. As to the latter the paper says : Generally speaking, he believes in maintaining the existing order. He has scant faith in attempts to reform the stock exchange, and would resist any attempt to hamper private control of business. He likes a little competi

Mr. Morgan is known by his "fruits" to be building up as fast as the brevity of life permits a huge and unprecedented control of transportation, industrial, and credit institutions and enterprises. To ask him whether he is doing so, or whether he believes in that sort of thing, seems a waste of time, if time has any value at Washington. Mr. Morgan's time at least supposedly has value, and he wasted about a week of it in order to make side-stepping responses to a lot of foolish questions.

The Louisville "Post" also says:

In his two days' examination little was revealed that was not known before. Supported by his legal lackeys, Mr. Morgan concealed what he did not care to have known, and revealed only those things of no real impor

After it was shown that the private banking house of J. P. Morgan & Co. had above seventy millions of deposits from big corporations, says the Topeka "Capital," "Mr. Untermyer could not induce Mr. Morgan on the stand to admit that it is undesirable from a public point of view to permit great corporations to make their deposits with private bankers who are not under Federal supervision." The paper adds:

Mr. Morgan explained his position. He believed that it depended on the character of the banker, and that it is a matter to be left to the directors of the corporations.

Mr. Untermyer had already shown that the directors are picked by J. P. Morgan, so that

their subsequent action in preferring to make the deposits with the bank of J. P. Morgan is natural. Should they prefer some other banker, some other directors would probably succeed them on the directorate.

Mr. Morgan runs counter to public sentiment, affirms the Tacoma Tribune," "when he declares that in his opinion the private banks should be allowed to do as they please with the funds intrusted to them and that the Government should not attempt to exercise control of these banks. Therein lies the milk in the cocoanut and the African in the woodpile."

The Buffalo "News" has another point of view :

Mr. Morgan states that the deposits in his own banking house run about a hundred millions on the average and that about seventy-one millions of that amount is the total deposits of no more than sixty-eight persons. Those sixtyeight persons are not hoodwinked, deceived, or cheated into depositing with Morgan & Co., neither are they compelled to leave their money there one minute if they do not wish to.

In a word, while every sort of emphasis is laid upon the influence that a man of good reputation in finance may exert, through his abil ities, nothing is said of the eagerness that the uncounted thousands of persons put their money where it may be 'under the guidance and direction of such a master mind, and do it gladly.

If one is going to annihilate the so-called Money Trust, the annihilation might as well begin with persuading depositors to scatter their money into small institutions where little can be done with it, and therefore little earned and small return be received.

Why does Mr. Morgan believe in combination? Logically, because it furthers the power of control he deems all-important. But when he speaks of control does he mean a kind of control that is exclusive of the matter of credit? If so, the control must be weak and ineffectual in many emergencies, since credit is such a huge factor in modern business.

Now, when we take Mr. Morgan's utterances in respect to combination and competition, and the right of private capital to wield unfettered control within a given domain of operations, and study them in the light of common sense and a knowledge of the trend of business, we have some highly interesting testimony bearing on the question of the control of credit, or a "money trust." Mr. Morgan says that combination has proved a very effective measure when used by the right kind of men, and doubt

Mr. Morgan-Yes.

Mr. Untermyer-If you controlled all those banks and a competitor, or a potential competitor, came along, and it was a good business proposition, would he get the money from those banks vou control?

Mr. Morgan-Yes, he would.

Mr. Untermyer-Some other man who might control might not take the view you have.

Mr. Morgan-He would not have the control. Mr. Untermyer--Assuming that you had it, your idea is that when a man abuses it he loses it ?

Mr. Morgan-Yes; and he never gets it back again, either. What I mean is this: The question of control, in this country at least, is personal; that is, in money.

Mr. Untermyer-If you had the control of all that represents the assets in the banks of New York, you would have the control of money, of all that money?

Mr. Morgan-No, you would not.

Mr. Untermyer-If a man controlled the credit of a country, he would have control of all its affairs?

Mr. Morgan-He might have that view, but he would not have the money. If he had the credit and I had the money, his customer would be badly off. Money cannot be controlled. Many men have great credit who have no money. Mr. Untermyer-Is not that because it is believed that they have money back of them?

Mr. Morgan-No, sir; it is because people believe in the man. I have known a man to come into my office, and I have given him a check for $1,000,000 when I knew he had not a cent in the world.

Why did Mr. Morgan, knowing that that