, 1875-06-06


! and respect of the American people, it will
appear in some unmistakeb]e nnnner.
PORK AND BEAN THEOLOGY.
The alliance which has recently been
formed between Prof. PArroN's paper and
TIE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, for the reformation
| of ministerial mtnus and the substitution OF
intellectual and religious growth and force in
tho place Of gastronon1ic culture is attract
ing widespread attention among the religious
newspapers, and We are glad to notice that
nearly I'll of them acknowledge the impor-
tance of the facts wo have both stated and the
necessity of thoir vigorous application. The
only material criticism upon an essential
point is advanced by the Cincinnati CONNER
| cal, which regrets tint TEE TRIBUNE should
have compromised on pork and beans and
yielded to Prof. PATroN's determination to
Danish them from the Sunday bill Of fare.
Says the Co,nme,ctal
We arc sorry to obses7e in view Of thI. important
fact disposition tie alt OF THE TR1nusE to
promise With Prof, EA11o ,1e zaka OF harmony.
It should insis. ths pork ina heans esfenal to
Chicago minister, and tho maintenance Of rigid
orthodox standard II Ia possible the editor thtnks
tae pecuinr ar;nces 1t the city, and the tendency
levatiou Of things in that Gurser Of the Eoe, viii
mitigate the results Of tie omission Of tho dish in
vented in the Of soIts and tied nm In the bag
given to UL1ases But the West Wind lackx tho pccu-
liar vrtua Of tEo Eas ;ae editor wall find ous II
ar1enders TO tbs dcuaaodn Of the iueonsle1Ats PAT
TON merely for tho sako c. pe1ce and unity.
1t is due to the lovers of pork aud beams
who maintain orthodox doctrines, as well as to
those who eat them and strny from the evan-
gelical fold, shat TIE TRIBUNE should explain
why it yielded the point and agreed with Prot.
PATTON that pork and beans we're q distender
that would prove fatal to the utility and pow
er Of pulpit appeal TIE TRIBUNE has e1am-
ined the Sacred Scriptures, and finds that Prof.
PATTON, for oucc, at least, is right in his the
illogical view Of pork and beans, and has am
pie authority for condenning their consump-
tor on Sundoy morning. Nowhers in Holy
Writ does the hog or the bean come in for
good word; on the other hand, they arc
always spoken of with eontcmpt, and serve
to point warnings to the ungolly Some
times they are connected with events which
have been pregnant with disasters to tie
elect. With reference to pork, The TRIBUNE
finds that Mo.Es never let En- opportunity
escape him OF attacking pork, pro
uounoing It unc}ean, and forbidding
the Israolites not only from eating the
miserable meat, but even from touching the
swinish carcaae, and that the Igraelites punc-
tiliously obsyed him, and never INDUCED in
roast pork, salt pork, tsnderioins, bacon,
ham, or jowl and spinach. ISAIAH also rein
forced Moses, and, with his prophetic vision,
saw, among the abominations of tho future,
people who defled themselves With pork.
Matthew, MAnH, and LUXE jubilate over the
fact Of that memorable disaster when 1000
of these wretched animals were seized by the
devil and rushed headlong down steep place
into tho Sea. PETER elevates his nose in dis
gust at the sow returning to her wal1owing.
SOLOMON had no more respect for tue hog
than to put a jewel Of gold in his snout, and
then liken him to fair woman without dis
cration- Every sacred pen WAS turned against
the pig-pen and its occupants. Nowhere does
the unc]ean beast find friend or sympathizer
in the Holy Scriptures, while othar domestic
animals are commended. Now, when we re-
fleet that these holy mep were inspired in their
writings, does it not follow that their warn-
ngs with regard to pork have divine au-
thorty, and that it is saczilege, therefore,
for the preacher to devour this unclean food
upon the Lords Day? TIE TnnusE, in fur
ther prosecuting its Biblical research, finds
that Prof. PATTON Is correct With regard to
that niry distender, the bean, and that it Was
q prolific source Of trouble to the chosen pco-
pie. It finds that one day tho Israelites were
weary, hungry, and thirsty, and that DAVID,
MAHANAIt, BAEz11LA1, and others, in the
most reckless manner, fed them with beans
and lentils. What was the result? The next
day they were Overwhelmingly defeated in
the woods Of EI.hraim, and ABsA1oM lost his
mule from under him aud Was slain BIZ Joan,
whereupon DAVID mourned over the cataa-
trophe in public, and over the bean business
probably, in private. TIE. TRIBUNE fur
thor fnds that EZEKIEL was onoe d.
rccted to make defled bread out Of
barley, beans, and lentils, and other stuff
still mora horrible, as typical Of tho
deleterious compound that thu children Of Is
rael would eat among tho Gentiles:, It also
finds that one day ths 1srae1ites accidentally
met the Philistines in large bean-patch and
wers fearfully whipped. They made up for
it by whipping the Philistines the next dey
but they were out Of the bean-patch when |
they did it, THz TRIBUNE, in conclusion,
calls attention to the fact that EAU vas
swindled out Of his birthnght with mess Of
pottage, and that this pottage was made ot
baanA These, We believe, arc tho only in
stances in the Scriptures where bsana ars 70
fezzed to, Sud ths references, va oontand, NJ
not fAvorahIs 70 this vegetable, sna Justify
fr1s PArxoa md Fxa 'Ehzsexr in III p1.t.