The Daily Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Or.) 1876-1883, 1883-08-23
The Daf1p 25turlan.
Beeeher's Portland lecture.

THURSDAY-......-..AUGUST .. 1883
Beecher's Portland Lecture.
IN reading the lecture deliv-
cred by Henry Ward Beecher at
Portland last Tuesday night, one
is struck by the Beecheresqueness
of his sentences. Whether in
Portland or Plymouth, lac is the
same inimitable, broadminded man
whose wondrous brain can not be
fettered by narrow creeds. His
Tuesday lecture was fully up TO
his usual style. lis language
hardly needs the assertion that
Beecher said it. His sentences
are like autographs and are as rec
ognizable. His subject was "Evo-
luton and Revolution" His lack
of orthodoxy is shown where he
says:
In the first place it seems to
disturb the yeracity, and therefore
the authority, Of the old Testament
Scriptures and men that are com
pretended in the narrow and ut
terly untenable theory OF inspira-
ton, namely, that the word Of
God was dictated to some report
ers or short hand writers-that lie
said one day, "come up here ]
have something to tell you," and
sat down and wrote out. or they
wrote it out under his direction.
In other words, the theory Of lit
eral verbal inspiration Of scripture
it run over that as a locomotive
runs over a frog. There is moth
ing left Of it, and ought not to be.
The old doctrine is the devils
highway TO inidelity, and the man
ought to be ashamed who has not
got over that delpsion of past
ages.
OF evolution he says:
|, for one, have accepted it, and
/ believe that man has unfoldeI
from the animal kingdom. | be-
lieve that in a score or two Of
years there will be little difficulty
in accepting evolution right
through. ] know there is some
popular feeling among men, and
is received with some revul-
sion. Men say they do not relish
the idea of being derived from
monkey. Well, | would just as
lief have come down from a
monkey as anything else-if !
have come far enough. One
thing | know perfectly well: ! am
a great deal more anxious and
particular about where / am GO
ing to, than where | came from.
OF original sin, foreordination,
infant damnation, and all the rest
of it he says:
Is it not unjust that 1 should be
cursed after 10000 years have
passed by for sins that l never
had any part ia? | had no divi-
dend in them. / ought not to get
a dividend ia damnation for them.
Would it be right to punish the
posterity Of man for the sins
they did not commit: After thou
sands Of years theology Furnishes
men for the sins they did not COM
NIT. Oh, was there ever such a
mess theology has given as a pot
tage to man! / would rather be-
lieve that / had descended from a
monkey when | can say | am a
long way from the home Of
my ancestors! | would rather
be priest of a lunatic asylum than
a teacher of any such doctrine.
The theory not only has no sense
in it, but is utterly abhorent to
me.
Evolution gives us a different
condition of things. 1t shows that
man has been growing and grow
ing ever since the creation, al
though it does not teach exactly
what we are to come to. Theology
represents God as capable Of con
signing 1,500,0OO,OO0 people every
thirty-three years (which is the av-
erage Of human life) to eternal
torment, and that God, knew from
the beginning that they would be
cursed; and God, knowing it, new
ertheless permitted these innocent
people to be born into the world
to be cursed. Now, / say, that a
creator who loves to witness the
sufferings ofpoor innocentc creatures
as the worst kind OF a devil. Men
say that at the time of Christ's ap-
pearance the scripture was to man
a broken law; and yet that law,
which is supposed to have been
broken, is itself a fable.
1t may be said that this is
strange doctrine for a Christian
minister to teach, but Beecher is a
law unto himself, and the great
courage that sent him to Exeter
Hall twenty years ago there TO de-
clare to England the doctrine of
the Union, the same breadth of
mind that enabled him to throw
the gage down to the foremost