Henry Ward Beecher’s Orthodoxy.
By James White
There is, perhaps, no individual in the United States who has greater influence in the religious world, than H. W. Beecher. His sermons and lectures are printed in various papers and published in books. He is heard with delight by thousands, and many consider him a real reformer,—a “liberal” in a moderate and orthodox fashion. But the more staid and truly pious have regretted that so great clerical influence should be exerted in favor of novel-reading, and of light or pernicious literature. The habitual reading of such trash as is weekly circulated in the New York Ledger is as bewitching as is gambling, and it is just about as destructive to the moral sensibilities. Bonner is a shrewd money-maker. In paying Beecher $10,000 for writing a novel, he well knew that he would secure thousands of Beecher’s admirers as permanent patrons. The evil exerted by Mr. Beecher in this direction will never be known till the Judgment shall reveal the secrets of men. The question of his “orthodoxy” has been much discussed, and has seemed almost impossible to settle. His writing a novel, and his occasional remarks savoring of “liberalism,” after the most odious use of that term, have caused many doubts, while his many truthful and pious utterances have caused them again to hope. But a recent “lecture-room talk,” puts the question at rest. This was “reported for the Methodist,” of Sept. 6, 1873, where we now read it. The subject was of doubts. A remark was made by a member concerning his past trials of mind, who said, “Nothing helped me till I got hold of this text, The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.” On this Mr. Beecher remarked as follows:—“That thought of blood never did me the least good in the world. The idea of blood is not to my taste, it pertains to the old sacrifices; the sheep or animal was killed, the people and everything was spattered with the blood. I do not use that text.” That a minister of the Christian religion, and one who is looked up to as an oracle of Christianity, can find no religious comfort in the thought of the blood of Christ, and does not use the text which gives assurance that that blood cleanses from sin, is truly deplorable. And the fact that such an utterance is heard without any apparent shock, and is published in one of the first religious papers of the land without comment or protest, seems fearfully ominous. The most out-spoken infidel of the age is not so dangerous in his influence as is Henry Ward Beecher. No spiritualist lecturer—no open reviler of God and the Bible, is so fast sapping the foundations of Christianity. And the multitude of church goers refuse to “hear sound doctrine,” and delight in the preacher of smooth things—the prophet of deceits. They accept such a plain denial of the blood of Christ, without which the gospel is no gospel in fact, and Christianity is robbed of its power to save. Truly, the “perilous times” have come. 2 Tim. 3:1–5.