The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-15 00:00:00

the Church. Now this feeling of perplexity, founded
on this ground, appears to be quite baseless. There
always have been parties in the Church of England,
nay more, I will say that never has there been a
Christian Church, even those which hav, arrogated
to themselves the quality and the charae er of unity,
in which parties have not equally pr sailed. But
there is this peculiarity in the Church of England,
that parties have always been permitted, nay recog-
nised and sanctioned. The Church of England has
always felt that the human mind was a manifold
quality, that some men must be governed by enthu-
siasm, some controlled by ceremony, and the object
of the Church has been that among Churchmen that
enthusiasm should never degenerate into extrava-
gance, and that ceremony should never be degraded
into superstition. No doubt during the last quarter
of a century or 30 years there had been among all
parties a period of excess. But we should not draw
general conclusions on such grave matters from such
limited observation as that, and the aggregate of
experience, in my opinion, justifies the conviction
that parties in the Church, instead of being a cause
of its weakness, are rather symptoms of its strength.
I now come to the feeling of distrust, and I hesitate
not to say that I attribute that feeling of distrust
which prevails among Churchmen to the recent
publication—the recent speculations upon sacred
things that have been published by some clergymen
of the Church of England. I deeply regret the
publication of that volume, for the sake of the
writers, and for no other reason. I am myself in
favour of free inquiry on all subjects, civil and reli-
gious, with only one condition—that the inquiry
should be pursued with learning, with argument,
and with conscience. (Cheers.) But I think that
we have a right to expect that free inquiry should
be pursued by free inquirers—(hear, hear)—and in
my opinion the principal authors of the work called
" Essays and Reviews," being clergymen of the
Church of England, had entered into engagements
with society inconsistent with the results recom-
mended in their publications. (Cheers.) Dismiss-
ing for a moment the character of the writers, I am
not disposed to evade the question—ls there any-
thing in that volume to occasion distrust among
Churchmen ? I think it perhaps may not be alto-
gether unsuitable if one or two observations be made
upon that subject by a layman, and that the brunt
of eomment should not always be left to clergymen.
The volume in question is founded, generally speak-
ing, on the philosophical theology of Germany ?
What is German theology ? It is of the greatest
importance that a clearer idea on that subject should
be entertained than I have found hitherto to prevail
in most assemblies of my countrymen. About a
century ago German theology, which was mere
mysticism, became by a natural law of reaction cri-
tical. A body of philosophic theologians gradually
arose and formed, in the course of years, a school
which introduced a new system of interpretation of
the Scriptures. They accepted without cavil the
sacred narrative, but they explained all that was
supernatural by natural causes, and they adopted as
the name of their new system the title of rationalism,
and called themselves rationalists. Supported by
great learning, and even greater ingenuity, the suc-
cess of this school of philosophical theologians was
transcendent: In the course of 50 years in which
it flourished, it absorbed the opinion of all the in-
-1 tellect of Germany, and very greatly influenced no
doubt the opinions of all the Protestant States. But
where is rationalism, and where are rationalists
now ? They have ceased to exist—they have been
erased from the intellectual tablets of living opinion.
Another school of philosophical theologians arose in
Germany, and with profound learning and inexorable
logic they proved that rationalism was irrational—
(laughter)—and they substituted for the rational
scheme of the interpretation of the Scriptures a new
scheme called the mythical system, but if it be true,
which undoubtedly it is, that the mythical theolo-
gians triumphantly demonstrated that rationalism
was irrational, equally true it is that by this time
the mythical system has itself become a myth.
(Cheers and laughter.) The most eminent and
most distinguished votaries of that school have en-
listed their energies and devoted their powers to a
new and all-triumphant development of German
theology which is now raging in that country, and
which, in deference to the spirit of progress which
is the characteristic, as we are told, of the 19th cen-
tury, and which generally ends in a recurrence
to ancient ideas—(cheers and laughter)—this new
system consists in a most able revival of Pagan pan-
theism. (Cheers.) Now that is a literally true
sketch of the various phases through which the
most intellectual opinion of Germany, during the
last century, has passed. (Hear, hear.) I ask you,
is the Church to be alarmed by such overreaching
and capricious speculations as these—(hear)—and
is society to be disturbed by a volume which is,
after all, but a second-hand medley of these dis-
cordant, inconsistent, and self-destroying theories ?
No religious creed was ever destroyed by a philo-
sophical theory. Philosophies destroy themselves.
Epicurus was at least as great a man, I apprehend,
as Hegel, yet it was not Epicurus that subverted
the Olympian religion. But then, it may be said,
are lucubrations of this nature not to be noticed and
answered ? I reply both. Let them be noticed
and answered ; though, I would say, in passing,
that hasty replies almost always assist well-matured
attacks. Let them be answered by those who are
equal to the occasion, and I doubt not that many
will come forward. Yet that a book of such a cha-
racter, written by clergymen of the Church of Eng-
land, should pass unnoticed by authority appears to
me most inconsistent. Therefore I may be per-
mitted to say that I think the notice taken of it by
convocation does great credit to the discretion of
that body. I think that convocation, in the manner
in which it dealt with that volume, showed that
good judgment which gradually, but surely, is ob-
taining for it a high place in public opinion. Con-
-1 yocation denounced that which it deemed a pesti-
lent heresy, but it did not recommend a prosecution
of the heretics. lam bound to say myself that I
wish the example of convocation had been followed
by others in high places. The wisest of men has
said that for everything there is a season • and it
does not appear to me that the 19th century is a
season when the Church should punish error, but
when it should rather confute it. Now, having
touched on the feelings of perplexity and dis-
trust, I would say one word on the
third feeling which prevents union among
Churchmen and weakens the efforts of these diocesan
societies. I allude to the feeling of discontent which
is a feeling that prevails among a certain portion of the
clergy, who take what are called exalted notions of
ecclesiastical affairs. I speak with frankness on
this subject, because my object in coming here to-
day is, if I possibly can, to advance a cause which
requires, I think, the united energies of the diocese.

I know that recent appointments, or rather the
appointments of late years to high places in the
Church, and other public circumstances which are
opposed to the spread and support, it is supposed,
of Church principles, have made some persons look
without any enthusiasm on the connection which
exists between Church and State, and even to con-
template the possible dissolution of that connection
and alliance. Now it is impossible to speak of those
who entertain those opinions without respect, and I
might say even affection, because we all of us, in a
very great degree, must share in the sentiments, of
those who entertain those opinions, though we may
not bell able to sanction their practical views. I look
on y
eta myself as founded entirely on fallacy, and
that fallacy consists, in m
tion that if the dissolut
ou p ionf i otnh,
ei n t
itehs e
ha
es st uviroe
epn-
Church and State took place the Church might
occupy that somewhat mediaevalno doubt in its time was highly
h ceficairaalc
to
oe rE wit
rhoirc
eh,
beneficial
L and to no country more than to Enland ; but tiny
opinion differs in that respect
that in this age and in thiscountryfurthe civil poi-
will ever submit to superior authority
r
a rival. I foresee, if that were to take priaeovee no n
; b
and controversy between Church and State on
ciprocal rights and duties—l foresee a probe
struggle and a possible spoliation. I am not
pared to run such hazards, for I should griev
Church of England, the eentr,
see this great Ch
light, of learning, and of liberty in this tour
occupying a position in reference to society sin
,d by the Episcopal Churc
to that which is fill/
Scotland, and even sinking into fastidious, not tc
cynical congregations. It ie my opinion that the

per
)0k
lest
re-
Lble

re to

try,
itctr

say
;011-