LETTER TO THE EDITOR.
THE ENGLISH CONGREGATIONALISTS AND MR.
BEECHER.
[TO THIS EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—With the sentiments expressed in your article of last Saturday on this subject I heartily concur. But I must be allowed to protest against the assumption which many will doubt- less make, that the Nonconformist body in general either share or sympathise with the action of the Congregational ministers who have signed the congratulatory message to Mr. Beecher. To most Congregationalists that message was as surprising and as unwel- come as Dr. Parker's astounding Sunday performance, and they will with difficulty avoid seeing in the whole affair a tendency to that double standard of morals which is so fatal an enemy to the healthy life of religious bodies.
There are some " improprieties " (to use Dr. Raleigh's word in his letter to the Times) so peculiar in their circumstances, that a lay- man can hardly commit them. It is the pastoral relation which pro- vides opportunities for them, but it is not pretended that it changes their character. That which constitutes their " impropriety " must be judged of apart from this relation ; and the question is, —what would have been thought of such acts as those Mr. Beecher has confessed to, if they had been committed by a lay- man? If, for instance, a member of Dr. Raleigh's own church had confessed to similar "improprieties," would any one have proposed, or would Dr. Raleigh have assented to, "an ex- pression of judgment and feeling entirely favourable to the Christian character of that 'honoured brother?'" Is it credible that such a judgment would, any the more, have been pronounced because the honoured brother had confessed to the improprieties under the pressure of a charge of adultery? Or because that charge, false indeed, but provoked by those very improprieties, had been prosecuted by malicious and unscrupulous enemies,
would the acquittal of the honoured brother, under such circune- stances, have been thought a fit opportunity for a public en- comium? Or would even the performance of services as great as Mr. Beecher's have been considered to form such an overplu,s of merits as to obliterate the offence, and leave only the clear record of a judgment entirely favourable to the culprit's Christian char- acter? There can be but one answer to these questions.
Are we, then, to assume that a different standard is to be applied to ministers and people? If so, it is a distinction to which Non- conformists have never yet been accustomed. Neither in theory nor in practice have they ever recognised in their ministers any sacerdotal or mysterious character, to cover either their "crimes" or their "improprieties." The theory remains unchanged. But there can be no question but that in practice their ministers have of late tended to assume the position of a distinct and separate caste, and it is not surprising if that tendency has been accompanied by a class-feeling which contains the germ of a priestly code of morals. The essence of that code is, that it does not deny their name to offences committed by the Cloth, but it withdraws the- offender from censure. It admits his "improprieties," but it. shields him from their consequences.
Of all people in the world, there are none who are less disposed than Nonconformists to tolerate such a view ; and if it is to be 'in any degree accepted by their ministers, it is time that lay opinion should step in to correct the errors of ministerial partiality.
Dr. Raleigh indeed declines to see in the message which be has signed any approval of "all Mr. Beecher's sayings and doings.' But he must be reminded that he has expressed his "continued confidence and unabated love," and is devoutly thankful "to put on record an expression of judgment and feeling so entirety favourable to the Christian character of our honoured brother." Does all this mean only that Mr. Beecher has not been convicted of adultery? Does Dr. Raleigh mean to say that to be freed from that charge is in any sense a certificate of Christian character? Whatever may be the precise import of these expressions, it is clear that the question how far they can be justified must depend on our judgment on the admitted parts of Mr. Beecher's performance. If these are slight and trivial, the message may perhaps be defended. If they are grave, it re- mains without excuse, It will be a grievous surprise to most of us to learn that so justly-respected and eminent a minister as Dr. Raleigh regards them as otherwise than grave. It will be not less so if we discover that what in a common Christian would be gross, sins against propriety and manliness, are in an "honoured brother" deemed only trivial offences.
The question is not whether Dr. Raleigh should pronounce censure on Mr. Beecher. No one has required it of him. The question is not whether he should refuse him the solace of his friendship. No one has asked him to withdraw it. The question> is whether it is in accordance with sound Christian morals that conduct like that of Mr. Beecher should be publicly and ostenta- tiously declared not to impair confidence, nor to be inconsistent with the Christian character.
To judge from some of Dr. Parker's utterances, his motto seems to be, "Proxima ardet." What "honoured brother"
is-
secure against such false charges ? The instinct of self-preserva- tion arms him in Mr. Beecher's defence. As a layman, I venture to reply that his motto is true, but his practical inference is false. If such conduct as Mr. Beecher's does not impair the confidence of ministers in Mr. Beecher, the knowledge of that fact is likely to impair our confidence in them. If they deem it consistent with a judgment "entirely favourable" to Mr. Beecher's Christian character, we must cease to look to the pulpit for a trustworthy exposition of Christian morality.—I am, Sir, &c.,
A CONGREGATIONAL NONCONFORMIST—
Previous page
