Son of God, the friend of the poor, and the Saviour of all men."

Dr. Charles Hodge, of Princeton, is said to have remarked of Mr. Beecher, "Whatever fault men find with his head, his heart is right."

It can scarcely be doubted that Mr. Beecher undervalued systematic theology, although he studied it more carefully than most people have imagined. It was ever his habit to have some book of theology within his reach during his long lecture tours. The complaint that Mr. Beecher's later teaching was "substantially unbiblical in tone" is a very grave indictment which will be earnestly disputed by many. Doubtless his later theology was unduly colored by his reading of Herbert Spencer and his enthusiastic advocacy of evolutionary theories. Even his earlier preaching seemed to many unbiblical in tone, because of its originality, novelty of emphasis, and freedom from many of the conventionalities. But this is to be said, that no one has a right to estimate Mr. Beecher by any fragmentary and sporadic reading of him. Only a large acquaintance is a just acquaintance. The critic is often tempted to say that his preaching lacked this or that important element, but reading on he finds what he thought was wanting. Mr. Beecher's sermons would doubtless be more satisfactory to the student if his statements were more fully qualified and balanced here and there, but this

"Beecher Memorial," p. 88.

* "Current Religious Perils," Boston Monday Lectures, Joseph Cook, 1888, p. 134.

was not Mr. Beecher's way, neither was it the way of Paul or of Jesus.

It is probable that Mr. Beecher did not count as a large help to evangelistic work in his later years, partly because of the doubt with which his theological position was popularly regarded, and partly because all of his energies were taxed with labors not directly evangelistic, and partly, it would seem from a lessening of some of the elements and forces in that strenuous faith which had early made him an earnest and whole-souled revivalist. It was felt by many that his mind had turned too exclusively to the gentler and more generous aspects of the Gospel, and it is probable that his championship of what he deemed theological reform diverted his soul in some measure from evangelistic effort.

was

Did he overvalue the new light which he had gained from evolution? In a letter written in 1886 to Mr. Alfred Rose, editor of The Pulpit of To-day, consenting to the publication of his sermons in pamphlet form, Mr. Beecher said: "It may be that it is a sign of advancing years that just now I am more willing to have them published than I ever before. But, to me, it seems as if God's Kingdom was opening to me and in me more than ever before, and my heart runs deeper than ever before. I do not feel that I am a prophet, or that I am opening a new dispensation or creating a new theology, but I feel that I am a forerunner of the great outpouring of the Holy Spirit on earth and that we are near the time when a great and glorious advance in religious experience will be disclosed. I have a zeal for the coming Kingdom of God. I would that I could do

more than cry, 'Prepare ye the way of the Lord,' but I am unspeakably grateful that I can do that."1

Mr. Beecher's contributions to theological progress were doubtless considerable What he wrote on Evolution, if appearing to-day for the first time, would excite less adverse criticism than fell on his utterances at that time. It was his misfortune, as a theological leader, partly from his temperament and partly from circumstances, to be always successful in stirring up such an amount of controversy that his theological opinions were rarely estimated at their true value. Whatever truths he may have overlooked or misunderstood, and however marked his failure to prophesy according to what may be deemed the right proportion of faith, he was a true pioneer of the larger and more Christlike Christianity of the future. Whatever his mistakes, it will be difficult to find any other man of his age who covered a larger area in the whole domain of truth than did Henry Ward Beecher.

'From T. J. Ellinwood's "Reminiscences."

CHAPTER XLII.

PULPIT THUNDERER AND PLUMED KNIGHT.

MR. BEECHER's most important relations to political life in his later years were connected with the Presidential campaign of 1884, when he gave his great influence for the election of Governor Cleveland. He had spoken with unequaled power for the election of Frémont, in 1856, and Lincoln, in 1860. Plymouth Church had been thronged Sunday evenings with excited multitudes in 1864, when he plead for the reëlection of the honest and far-sighted chief magistrate whose hand on the helm of State had been so steady and strong. He had favored Grant in 1868 and 1872; had spoken for Hayes in 1876 and for Garfield in 1880. He had taken an active part in attacking the corrupt judges of New York City in 1868-9, and had worked faithfully for good government in Brooklyn.

As the questions which led to the war, and were entailed by it, had been largely settled, and settled right, Mr. Beecher's attitude toward the Republican party became more independent. As the chief differences between the leading parties of the United States had to do with the protective tariff, and Mr. Beecher was a pronounced free-trader, his alliance with the Republicans grew less firm. He was greatly pleased

with the unexpected wisdom shown by Mr. Arthur in the Presidential office, and earnestly desired his nomination by the Republicans in 1884. He was grievously disappointed when the Republicans presented the name of Mr. Blaine, whom he had come to distrust. He also felt that many of those who were most prominent in supporting that brilliant but unfortunate leader, represented the corrupter elements of the Republican party. The nomination by the Democrats of Governor Cleveland, whom he had come to admire, made it possible for him to break away from his old affiliations.

Mr. N. D. Pratt, in his reminiscences, writes: "Mr. Beecher was personally opposed to Blaine, honestly believing him unfit for the Presidency. In conversation with him in April of that year he told me that if Mr. Blaine was nominated it would split the Republican party. An admirer of Mr. Blaine and a believer in him, as I was, it seemed intolerable to think of Mr. Beecher opposing him. When he was nominated, Mr. Beecher was for a long time silent. R. W. Raymond wrote me during the campaign that he thought that Mr. Beecher's purpose was to be silent and not to oppose Mr. Blaine. But injudicious friends kept after him and were not satisfied with his silence, but seemed determined to make him speak for the Republican candidate. Finally many injudiciously threatened him that if he went on the stump for Cleveland they would rake up his old trouble. This stirred the lion within him, and he took the platform for the Democratic candidate.”

"As did thousands of his friends, I wrote a long letter to Mr. Beecher and besought him not to let his