May 2, 1887.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



159 



different sense from that embodied in the simple, anthropomorphic 

 conception of Jesus. The Messianic doctrine of the Jews is to us a 

 beautiful dream, which the Prophet of Nazareth did not fully 

 realise either according to the popular expectation or his own more 

 spiritual interpretation. Not in any of these theological conceptions 

 do we find the secret of the influence of Jesus upon the life and 

 thought of later generations. 



THE 



"SATURDAY REVIEW" ON 

 BEECHER. 



OTHING Diore discreditable to English journal- 

 ism has appeared for years than the attack 

 made by the Saturday Review upon the 

 memory of America's great preacher, Henry 

 Ward Beeclier. It is not known in America 

 so well a.s it is in England that such attacks 

 in English journals have in reality been 

 directeii against Beecher rather as an advocate of a policy 

 not now fashionable in the old country, than against 

 Beeeher, the '" lapsed Congregationalrst " (whatever in- 

 tensity of reproach those " very bitter words" may imply). 

 Americans, thus ignorant of the real meaning of the attack, 

 can only wonder that the editor of a paper pretending to 

 any position in r&spectable journalism should have allowed 

 an article to appear which, apart from the bad taste shown 

 in every line, is so inanely irate that its venom is neutralised 

 by its folly. 



If Mr. Beecher had been the feeblest preacher or teacher 

 that had ever addressed a congregation, if he had been even 

 the offensive blasphemer imagined in the Siiturday Review, 

 it would have been grossly offensive to dwell on such 

 shortcomings at a time when his own people were 

 mourning his loss. But Beecher was a man of 

 whom America was justly proud. What was said of 

 him in the Saturday Review might unfortunately be 

 very truly said of many preachers in America, as it 

 might be said of many in the old country. Too many 

 preachers in botli countries have striven to obtain a false 

 popularity by vulgar tricks, b}' coarse buffoonery, and by 

 scarcely veiled profanity. But Beecher was never one of 

 these. The Saturday Revieir even mistakes (if it does not 

 wilfully mis-state) in suggesting the idea that Beeeher strove 

 to attract his audiences by pulpit-jesting. The touches of 

 humour which may be noted in his sermons, as reported or 

 written, are characteristic enough, it is true, but he appealed 

 .always to the rea.soning iaculties of his hearers, not to their 

 •sense of fun or to their love of amusement. 



Each Monday the leading papers in the United States 

 pubUsh the sermons of those who are regai-ded, rightly or 

 wrongly, as the leading American preachers. The bulk of 

 such matter is very poor reading. Most of the sermons thus 

 published are vulgar or sUly or offensively unchiistian. A 

 paragraph or two from one of Talmage's sermons will more 

 than nauseate a reader of average taste and intelligence by 

 its disgusting imagery, its charnel-house metaphors, its 

 illustrative references to ulcers, cancei-s, putrefaction, and 

 other unseemly matters. The vulgarity of the much- 

 followed " Sam .Tones," his amazing self-sufficiency, and the 

 way in which he condemns to eternal torments all who 

 differ fi-om him, cause even less than a paragraph of his 

 sermonising to thoroughly sicken all but the strongest- 

 stomached reader. And though others among the preachers 

 are not so bad as these, few manage to preach or to write 

 sermons which any one of taste or culture can read with 

 patience. But everything Beecher allowed to appear in 

 this way was worth attentive study. He was never 

 dogmatic or overbearing. He did not even seem to desire to 



teach his hearers what they should believe or do. Always 

 his tone was as of one striving after the truth. He seemed 

 rather to ask, " Ought not u-e to think and act thus 1 " than 

 to say, " You ought thus to believe, and by these rules to 

 guide your conduct." 



I have myself so intense a dislike to the usual tone of 

 preachers that my opinion of a man in Beecher's position 

 would be apt to be somewhat influenced by prejudice. I 

 recognise in myself here an idiosyncrasy which would tend 

 to make me unfair towards preachei-s generally, though I 

 can maintain conscientiously the position that in the great 

 majority of cases preachers, by the mere fact that they deem 

 themselves competent to teach other men their duty, are 

 objectionable in the sense in which the Pharisees seemed 

 objectionable to the founder of Christianity. Bat Beecher 

 belonged to that small minority among preaching men who, 

 while they possess great power of exposition and persuasion, 

 are more anxious to seek out the truth for themselves than 

 to convince their fellow-men. Herein I take it lay the 

 charm of his teaching and the secret of his influence, though 

 I can only guess this by reading his sermons, having never 

 heard him preach. 



The Saturday Review quotes two passages from Beecher's 

 sermons as showing such inanity that to compare him even 

 with Mr. Spurgeon needs apology, which it proffers ; and 

 we all know what intensity of spite an apology from the 

 Saturday Review implies. One of these passages is admit- 

 tedl)- taken away from the context, and is thus so altered in 

 character as to be unmeaning. The other affords a rather 

 curious illustration at once of Beecher's turn of mind and 

 of the mistake into which the Satvrday Reviewer has fallen 

 (let us charitably suppose) in treating him as a humourist of 

 the pulpit. Said Beecher, speaking of Colenso's inquiries 

 into the Pentateuch, " What if there are mistakes in the 

 books ascribed to Moses ! If there are, the mistakes are 

 there : that is all. What if it shall be proved that Moses 

 did not write those books? Then it is proved that he did 

 not write them ; that is all. What if .some of tbe books 

 which have been by many men considered divinely inspired, 

 must be otherwise regarded ? Then we must not deem 

 them God's word ; that is all. And what are we to say of 

 tho.se that are still left? We must accept them as still left 

 us ; that is all." * If this were the beginning and end of 

 an argument, it would doubtless be unsatisfactory, except 

 for hearei-s quick to apprehend the underlying meaning. 

 But the words quoted form only part of a very character- 

 istic piece of pleading. Beecher appeals to men to accept 

 the truth as they see it, without the fear (implying want of 

 faith) that the truth can do them harm. Underlying his 

 appeal, we see the recognition of the way in which many 

 weakly strive to blind their eyes to the tiuth. Beecher 

 urges men to be less timid. Oh ye of little faith, he seemed 

 to say, wherefore do ye fear ? Why must you wish to offer 

 to God the unclean sacrifice of a lie ? That Beecher prac- 

 tised what he thus taught, and that he suffered for so 

 doing, is well known in America. The coarse abuse of 

 science, and especially of the doctrine of evolution, in which 

 Talmage and his fellows revelled, was undoubtedly much 

 more profitable for them than Beecher's ready, and even 

 reverent, recognition of demonstrated truths. But the 

 judgment of all the better sort of men approved the faithful 

 honesty of Beecher, impolitic though it doubtless was, and 

 scorned the pretended earnestness of hypocrites. 



On one other point let me touch but for a moment. It 

 has been asked with much derisive sneering, how America 



* The Saturday Review, speaking of this passage, says it declines 

 to recognise in it a specimen of American humour. As reasonably 

 might it be said of American wheat that it cannot be regarded as 

 good tobacco. 



