National Republican., 1883-01-12
GOD AS AN HYPOTHESIS.
What MIR. Beecllcr Really Did Say on the
Subject.
10 The EiRor.

10 the Eitor
In his lecture, lately delivered in this city
by Mr.. Beecher, on Evolution and Revolu-
tion," he was reported to have said that God,
or the idea of God, was a mere hypothesis"
In view of this statement the following note
of inquiry was addressed to him:
WAsHINGToS, d. g., Dec. 10, 1Ss2-Dear Brother
Btecher! The papers and parsons Of this city have
represented you as saying that GOd--Or The Sded
" God-iSd mere hWDgthes'S." Knowing, us do,
how much you have always exalted the persOn-
aity OF God in Christ, have strenuuusly denied
the statement. Please write on the Enclosed card
&" yes" " or $40" as TO the truth or falsty Of the
report FfaleTnally, yours,
c. II. a. BULKLEY, Howard University.
TO this Mr.. Beecher returned Immediately
the following reply, with respect to which
when his consent was subsequently asked to
its publication, he wrote: ''lt was not written
for the press, and l do not know that it has
on Il new shirt collar, wristbands, and all that
but let ii 60"
The letter, it will be seen, is most thor
ough and mastery synopsis Of the lecture,
exhibiting much more Mr.. Beecher's logical
| skill than is usually apparent to his hearers
in his sermons or lectures,
The following is true copy of his reply:
BROOKLYN, n. Y, 12i COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, Dec.
by note than by card, My lecture was AN argu.
ment to defend the substantial grounds Of Chris
t1niiy against the scientific scepticism which is
rife, My argument was, In brief:
!. The reality of evolution.
ii, The light which II throws upon questions OF
the individual and Of society,".
IL That eVolut on would become q powerful
auxiliary of Christianity,
argued: /. n was not opposed to the reality
OF God. 2, Nor to tho authority Of the bible. 0.
Nor to the doctrine of univ yersal sinfulncss. 4.
Nor TO conversion. b, Nor to the existence and
usefulness of church institutions, sc.
As 10 God, argue that there were three school S
| OIgVOlltiDuigtgs L Athoigtip. =. AunDstips
| istlc, As against the Agnostics, who argue that
the existence OF God Is not proglbie by science,
,hl theri may be one, argued, God q nroya9le
| by IIYPOTHEsls-and l affirmed that hypothesis
! wa, in It's right use sufficiently convincing and
| sa istyug to affect, not ouly the claims Of evi-
! dence and conviction, but to build systems on Ia
! induce man to invest property, take all risks,
&c; that has at the bottom the very subslralum
of science tSelf thatit Is at the root Of astronomy
that geology Is a vast bundle of hypothesis that
| the atomic theory-the theories of light aud
sound were substantial hypothesis-and that God
| was, even (considered) as Hypothesis, as legti.
| mutey within the circle of sCiVnlihc proof as the
grea, doctrines ofscence,
But, then went on to show, that moral intul-
ton was real, was scientific, &cn ana that the tgd
! neutrality-suspicious. and moral intuition-werC
| proof enough.
ThC mct Is inhdeity Is coming In like food
! Our shores are lined with pirates of uubeleG Men
and ministers, In little lis, ARE huggng the shore
aud railing at any prvateer that goes out to mee
| them on their own terms,
| llglOn, that was, forty years ago, toward liberty
and slavery, and am bombarded by both sides
| than doubtful, who, years hence, will join il
spelling the enemy, whom they will not now rais(
| ahand u deieut, and attempt tO weaken the haud
| OF lhose VINO are lighting against the fle.
! Ever yours, HENRY WARD BEECHER.
Comment on the above is needless. 1t Il
clearly evident thererom that the papers havt
unsupported, and the parsons misrepresente(
Mr.. Beecher's position. c. ii. A, Is.