Thomas was a drunkard from heredity, and was saved by environment. William was always steady from heredity and environment. Stephen was steady from heredity, almost became a drunkard from environment, and was finally saved by new environment. John owed his ruin to his grandfather and his shopmates. Thomas owed his safety to his shopmates, who rescued him from the taint of his grandfather's evil legacy. William owed his safety to his blood. Stephen, after being endangered by his companions, was saved by his wife. Assuming all other conditions to be equal, and all other traits of character similar, how are we to blame one or praise another of these four brothers? Each is what descent and surroundings have made him. An apple tree cannot bear bananas. A rose tree cannot bear lilies. A rose tree in good soil bears well; a rose tree in bad soil bears poorly. In times of drought the crops perish for lack of water. In rainy weather the hay rots instead of drying. Let us now consider some of the arguments actually used in denying the power of environment. Some little time ago the Rev. R. J. Campbell, of the London City Temple, preached a sermon on environment. From a report of that sermon I take the following passage: His argument was that it was all nonsense to say that environment made the man. The man who had any manhood in him could rise above and beyond his environment, just as Bunyan soared above his tin kettles. This is an example of the confusion of mind into which educated men fall when they deal with this simple subject. Mr. Campbell's first mistake is the mistake of separating heredity from environment. Of course, it is nonsense to say that environment makes the man. But who did say anything so silly? Heredity "makes the man," and environment modifies him. Having made that clear, let us consider Mr. Campbell's second sentence: The man who had any manhood in him could rise above and beyond his environment, just as Bunyan soared above his tin kettles. Mr. Campbell says: "The man who has any manhood in him." But suppose he has not any manhood in him! Suppose he is a poor human weed born of weeds. Can he bear wheat or roses? And if he only bears prickles or poison, who is to blame? Not the man, surely, for he did not choose his parents nor his nature. Shall we blame a mongrel born of curs of low degree' because he is not a bulldog? A man can only realise the nature that he has, and can only realise that in accordance with environment. But this same sentence shows that Mr. Campbell does not understand what we mean when we use the word "environment". For he tells us that a man can rise above and beyond his environment. Now, a man's environment is composed of every external influence which affects him in any way, from the moment of his birth to the moment of his death. Therefore a man cannot rise above and beyond his environment until he ceases to exist.