New-York tribune., 1875-11-13
THE CHURCH CONGRESS.

LIFE
| ,FRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE rRinrHE.I
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 1.-The second annual
Congress Of the Protestant Episcopal Church closed to
day The sessions, continuing four days. have been well
attended throughout and the proceedings have been
characterized by freshness and vivacity seldom VII
messed in religious assemblies. wide range OF topics
has been discussed. Many of the ableSt writers ana
speakers in the denomination representing the epsco
pacy the clergy aud the lay. have exchanged views
upon nearly every important subject connected with the
growth and welfare of the Episcopal Church and the
result has not been to harnonize conflicting opinions
has certainly been 20 strengthen aud nyigora'e 'ne
church. The frequent and earnest crossing oil thcs"oIu'
of argument appears TO have left no ranking wounds
but rather to have increased the esteem of the combat
| ants for each other.
The presence of two parties In the Congress was mani
| fest from the start ANY one wholly unfamiliar with the
recent controversies within the Episcopal Church WOhd
have had no difficulty. after listening to the debates III
defining pretty accurately the ground occupied 10y eacn
One ia the conservative and the other the progressive
| element. On almost every subject considered by the
Congress in which there room for difference OF
opinion 1t has been easy To predict the side upon "ch
each of the parties would range Itself one idNOrs
! a revision Of the Bible the other cngs with reyerent
tenacy TO King James's version One seeks 10 limit the
authority of the bishops the other wishes TO magnify IT,
one welcomes scientific discovery and free inquiry the
other would up the barrier of revelation IN the pains
| OF human reason One tends to congregGtionalsm IN
hierarchy. One looks with dsfavor on the simplest
| ceremonies the other longs to restore complicated
! system of medieval symbolism. The 0utpoSts OF the
former party approach the sterile region of rationalsin
aud those the latter encamp close to the misty land o.
superstition.
Difference of far less importance than these in former
times produced schisms and developed new sects II
they have not this effect in the Protestant Episcopal
organization it is probably due to two causes-thc
modern spirit OF tOleratOn and ;he strong love ana
reverence Of the clergy for the church as their common
mother whose power and prestige they would in no way
diminish.
The subject for debate this morning was Mutual LIN
itations Religious and Scientific Inquiry The Hst
reader was the Rev Dr. Il. Huntington OF Worces-'
| ter. Mass, who said:
For theologians theology the science OF sciences in
cuding al forms OF knowledge. True theology VIII
Th,T i comics, bel ween scientists aud religion. aud in
this discussion the hcolOgan mas claimed too much anu
too late. Theology writes her own deahwaildht WIN
she undertakes she is OF the sciences Let er
rise and assert her own lerogatiVe OF mohefh2ou anu
UueeuSip contest alluded 10 Is more dlFect ne
tween the mi Aed sciences than the pure science GeIm
geology has been at war with Genesis ever since The
science came into general study G4d anu co9ac,ttS % &
of Theology facts OF nature aud of science, we pre-
serve the idea that tho building Is OF God
ogv that all things can be made harmonious.
II does not do 10 say that broken theology les aong ne
path of the Church. If the patE OF science strewn
with broken sciences. There is 40 new religion Ie!s 10
the place of the Old; tHCc - no apprehension y"
t6is snhiecG Having confessed feelings, must ask
the scientists treat our postulacS with more respect
His nonXstence and the dcta merely sure to distress
all those who make IT., as II Is easy 10 declam against
| theology and laughat IL.
The Right Rev. Thomas VI. CLARK, Bishop OF hhouo
| Island, followed He said:
We hear that there is conflict in the science OF
he9oSy S m.e m TO s through nature through
his servants and through Him in wnom all OF the Cod
aSi Gdu i6e n farls of hstoricA theology lie in another
Neither do apprebend any trouble rom the law o, o,
| evicuce I do of think likely To comprehend
the degree in which nfdety is creeping into the minds
of the rising generation. II become, the clergy 10 tahe
into consideration the relations between theology ana
science II would cope successfully WIN the scenlnc
nfidel of must rid our theo0gcal tilrls "i
unnecessary loads Of these loads Is the theory OF
tine verbal iualhbity of the scriptures an lcnphce
in the standards of the Protestant Epacopal Church
Another Is certain forms OF belief so derogatoy to the
character Of Almighty God that no man who believes III
ordinary human virtue ought TO accept them'
The Rev c. c. Tiffany OF New-York spoke Of the in
| definite apprehension among church members that
science is going To get the better of religion lhey
IMAGINE that science ald religion are like picket guards
of hostile armies all the time trying to get pop at each
other The real attitude of the two is one Of friendly
mutual aid They need each other. Tho integrity OF one
is the integrity the other The only school OF science
tiat can damage theology il the mJterialsc ana hit
cuts the ground from under the feet OF science well as
of religion for when it pretends that conscience Is only
tbe result of nervous irritation and thus destroys the
idea Of freedom and responsibility. il by the same
argument that intellectual processes are Just as
| likely 10 be a dclus0n.
The Rev Dr. Leeds Of Baltimore said that all thcoog-
cal inouy is necessarily scientific in IFS own depart
mcnt Theology il the queen al the sciences and all
true science is essentially Christian. The presumption
that there was creator and that the universe is pro-
duet of evolution that had no beginning is not scientific
because the spectral analysis proves that the lnoechs
of the most distant planet the same rs those OF the
matter around ami that they undergo no change
created they
they are umcreated aud thus the Diety himself The
Church il 10 blame for the arrangement of many OF 'he
hest minds of the age from her fold The Il no irrccoh-
cilahlc conflict between science and revelation.
The Rev Dr. William Newton Of Philadelphia insisted
that between the facts of science ana religion thee
could be no discrepancy. II is The Interpretation men
give TO the facts that makes an apparent cohnct lie
referred to Prof ProcOrs change Oi opinion as 10 le
deyeopncnt theory, and said that when he wished 10
learn The facts astronomy lie would sit at Proctors
feet but when hc conclusions from those facts he
nrcterred TO think for himself He ridiculcd Darwin
theory Of the descent Of man, and said that tn great i
Of the science Of the day TO show that man was de-
rived from uyulc l2looo Of an inch in diameter ana
differing in no respect from the uyucs Of other animals
and that language came from the discovery by
soe wise old ape that could utter cultural sounds
The Eev C. T. Bates Of Ohio the Rev. Dr Harrison OF
Camden \ j. Dr. Sullivan Chicago, aud others took
| part in the debate
! PROMOTION or SPIRITUALITY.
The final session OF tie COneIess began al p m va
rions resolutions OF thanks adopted The subject
Of Tie afternoon was Best Methods Of Promoting sHr
ual Life" DR.. T. W. Bancroft of Brooklyn treated the
snhicct i'm the manner OF He argued that the
OF spirit of reciprocity and constant read
ne Of the Bible were necessary 10 the spiritual me-
Hindcranccs were forgefncss OF the grounds on which
We receive the divine favor, and the failure firmly 10
| harness the heart ia The way of eodliness