of the Old Testament. I followed, going over
much the same ground as at Salem, but speaking with more severity of
feeling. My heart was getting harder.

The Rev. George Storrs replied. He set himself especially to answer H.
C. Wright, and he spoke with much effect.

In the afternoon of the second day, W. L. Garrison proposed six
resolutions, bearing partly on the Bible, and partly on the church and
clergy. They were very strong. There was a considerable amount of truth
in them, but their spirit and tendency were bad. Parker Pillsbury
followed with a speech, in which he praised natural religion, but
condemned the religion of the church.

In the evening Mr. Garrison spoke. He spoke with much power. He dwelt
chiefly on what was called the doctrine of _plenary inspiration_. His
strength was in the extreme views of the orthodox theologians, and in
the inconsistencies of the church and the clergy.

Mr. Garrison made a second speech on the fourth evening, still dwelling
on the theory of _plenary inspiration_. Before he got through his speech
the meeting was disturbed by a number of theological students, from a
college in the city. They threatened mischief. One displayed a dagger.
Confusion followed. Some of the speakers fled, and others were alarmed.
I kept my place, but soon found I had the platform to myself. I expected
more courage from my skeptical friends. But they understood Judge Lynch
better than I did, and their discretion, under the circumstances, might
be the better part of valor. My rashness, however, ended in no mishap.
And the only bad effect which the violence of our opponents had on me
was, to increase my hatred, perhaps, of the church and its theology. It
is not wise in professing Christians to resort to carnal weapons in
defence of their views.

In December 1853, I gave a course of lectures in Philadelphia. I was
brought to the city by the Sunday Institute. The object of the lectures
was to show, that the Bible was of human origin, that its teachings were
not of divine authority, and that the doctrine of its absolute
perfection was injurious in its tendency. The room in which I lectured
was crowded, and the audience was much excited. I stated, in opening,
that I had nothing to say against anything that was true and good in the
Bible,--that virtue was essential to man's happiness, and that I had no
sympathy with those who rejected the Bible because it rebuked their
vices. I was sincere in these remarks; b