The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1873-02-12

NgNNNN-HNAS sI'SNAUe9J NHuA N-'NJ
the four gospels, and that if he were to sub
stitute 1.-THE four gospel" for the words,
systematic theology" the sentence would
contain just as much truth and sense as it
does now. The ten Pagan prosecutions, and
all the others from the same quarter, were
certainly not owing to any great devotion to
systematic theology" unless it was in the
victims who suffered; aud those of Papal
Rome were begun aud carried on, for the
most part, from merely political or eccleSias
teal motives. 1t was not doctrine so much,
as it was interference with the established
machinery by which the priestly domination
and revenues were maintained, that reused
the wrath and the power of the prosecutor.
Systematic theology" though it means
nothing more than the connected and classi-
fed teachings of the Bible, is a terrible bug
bear to Mr.. Beecher. Orthodoxy, or evan
gelical religion, is the object of this particu-
lar dislike, and for years past it has received
a periodical bom5aydme1t ofsdanuEciation,
caricature, aad ridicule from Plymouth pul
pit, though the effect has not been of a ma
ture to cause much alarm. The community
understand pretty well what degree of in
portance to attach to these assaults. He
has a right to express his contempt for "sys-
temadc theology" and orthodox religion to
bis hearts content, and the orthodox have
also right to express their disgust at the
rationalism with which his sermons are so
largely imbued. Infdelity gives him the
tribute of its applause, and he is welcome to
it. There are men of another stamp who
are content to receive its disapproval and
dislike, and they would run the risk of in
curing even the ridlcule of the preacher
in Plymouth pulpit, for the sake of maintain
ing their fidelity to the Bible, and to Him
whose glorious truth it is.
To be sure, he is in favor of morality
even "Cbristian morality in the schools.
But he is opposed to having the Christian
religion there. One is prompted to ask,
How can you have Christian morality there,
without having the Christian religion also,
in which that morality must have its roots ?
The idea is preposterous on the face of it.
1t is the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left
out. ''Tne State" adds Mr., Beecher,
"has right to found and maintain schools,
and religion in the ordinary acceptation Of
the word, or sectarianism, has no right sin
the schools" But how about the Bible ?
What is religion in the ordinary accepta-
ton of the word" And that, as he has
maintained before, "has no right in the
schools" No Protestant, at least, desires to
have any seetarian tenets brought into the
public schools; but relgion-the Bible,
either Douay or King James-as the foun-
dation of all genuine morality, and emphati-
cally of all Christian morality, whether for
Protestant or Romanist, most PrOtestants
DO desire to have brought in. The Bible is
as far from a mere narrow sectarisDism as
the east is from the west. The teachings of
the Bible constitute religion in its principles.
But these, we are told, have "no right in
che schools" We respectfully demur, aud
choose the guidance Of God rather than man.
How different are these utteranoes from
those of Washington in his farewell address.
Said the father of his country: "Let us
with caution indulge the suppostion, that
morality can be maintained without religion.
Whatever may be conceded to the influence
of refined education on minds Of peculiar
structure, reason and experience both forbid
US to expect that national morality can pre-
vail in exclusion of religious principles. "
Truer words were never spoken. They carry
IN them the vital secret and pledge of ma
uon's greatness and perpetuity, and just as
a nation accepts or rejects them, so it fixes
itself in an upward or a downward career
AS between the wholesome teaching of the
farewell address, and the remarkable faulty
Of the lecture under review, we believe the
American people will not hesitate in making
heir choice.
Mr.. Beeoher's position is most singular
and unfortunate in regard to nearly all those
public questions that involve Biblical and re-
Ggious principles. More unfortunate to
himself, doubtless, than to any one else
de is willing to see the Bible expelled from
the public schools. He is willing to give up
the Divine authority for the Sabbath, and
che religious sacredness of the day. In
Cooper Institute, on the evening of April
22d, 1872, he said, 81 do not believe we hare
received the Sabbath on account of the Lords
absolute command Certainly the Jewish
Sabbath is not ours. It was only day of
rest, the one joyful day of :he Jews. The
only thing that a0as forbid s0aa work y
It ,ca8 not distinctly a religious dag, but SIM
ply a dag Of secular rest. He is willing
to give up, as we shall see, the expiatory
sacrifice Of Christ, and "the plan of saliva
tion" by means of it, as, to use his own
words, "a mess of sheer ignorance, not to
say nonsense" He is willing, and he de-
clares himself so, to give up the blood of
Christ, and the atonement of Christ, and the
plan of salvation, and the cross, as obsolete,