Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1883-03-02
MIR. BE!iCIIER
lid Not Say tha. &c or the Idea OF God
Is a liere ~ ,olhesis."
WI IT Hi. Il 'LLl I'D SAY ACCORD
M 70 Iii.i>ELF.

In his lecture, lately delivered in
Washington by Mr. Beecher, on
Evolution and Revolution" he was
reported to have said that "God, or
the idea of God, was a mere hy-
pothesis." In view of the statement
the following note of inquiry was ad
dressed to him:
WASHINGTON, December Is, 1882
DEAR BROTHER BEEcHER: hepapera
and parsons of this city have repre-
sented you as saying that "God-or
the idea of Gods mere hy-
pothesis.' Knowing. as l do, how
much you have always exalted the
personality of God in Christ, l have
strenuously denied the statement.
Please write on the inclosed card a
yes" or mo" as to the truth or falsity
of the report. Fraternally yours.
CHI A. BULKLEY,
Howard UNIVERSITY. :,
To this Mr. Beecher returned I'M
mediately the following reply, with
respect to which, when his consent
was subsequently asked to it's publ
cation, he wrote: 1T was not written
for the press, and I do not know that
it has on new shirt, collar, wrist
bands, and all that-but let it CO."
The following is true copy of his
reply:
BROOKLYN, N. Y, No. 124 COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS, December -, 1882.-My
Dear Mr.. Bulkley: I prefer to write
by note than by card. My lecture
was an argument to defend the sub
stantial grounds of Christianity
against the scientific skepticism
which is rife. My argument was. in
brief:
l. The reality of evolution.
2. The light which it throws upon
questions of the individual and of
society.
3. That evolution would become a
powerful auxiliary of Christianity.
argued: l. 1t was not opposedto
the reality of God. 2. Nor to the
authority of the Bible. 3. Nor to
the doctrine of universal sinfulness.
1. Nor to conversion. 5. Nor to the
existence and usefulness of church
institutions, ETC.
AS to God 1 argued that there were
three schools of evolutionists: l.
Atheistic. 2. Agnostic. 3. Theistic.
AS against the Agnostic, who argue
that the existence of God is not
provable by science, though there may
be one, argued. God is provable by
scientific methods of universal au-
thority-viz., by hypothesis-and I
| affirmed that hypothesis was in its
right use, sufficiently convincing and
satisfying to affect, not only the
| claims of evidence and conviction,
but to build systems on. to induce
man to invest property, take all risks,
etc; that it has at the bottom, the
| very substractum of science itself;
that it is at the root of astronomy;
that geology is vast bundle of hy-
pOthesis; that the atomic theory-the
theories of light and sound We're sub
stantial hypothesis-and that God
was, even (considered as an hypothe-
sis, as lesitimately within the circle
of scientific proof of the great doc
trine of science.
But, / then went to show, that
moral intuition was real. was scien-
tifc, ETC.; and that the two together
hypothesis and moral intuition
were proof enough.
The fact is, infdelity is coming in
like flood. Our shores are lined
with pirates of unbelief. Men and
ministers, in little skiffs, are hugging
the shore and railing at any privateer
that goes out to meet them at their
| own terms.
feel that l am in the same posi-
ton toward religion that I was forty
years ago towards liberty and slav-
cry, and am bombarded on both sides,
and that ministers and churches lie
off. more than doubtful, who, years
hence. will join in spelling the enemy.
whom they will not now raise hand
to defeat, and attempt to weaken the
hands of those who are fighting
against the foe. Ever yours.
HENRY WARD BEEcHER.