THE EPISCOPAL CONGRESS ON THE GROUNDS OF CERTITUDE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIX, Issue 21, 20 February 1891, Page 27

THE EPISCOPAL CONGRESS ON THE GROUNDS OF CERTITUDE.

(Brooklyn Cithtlic Review.) As usnal, the Church Congress of the Protestant Episcopalians at Philadelphia, the other day, presented some very ludicrous features and they are admirably reported by the Independent . It seems a pity tbat to grave and important a question as that of " Grounds of Certitude in Philosophy and Religion," should have been presented in such a light as to furnish a theme of amusing comment. But what else could you expect ? Of all tbe snbjects that were calculated to give rise to the Babel of confused discussion peculiar to the Episcopal Congresses that question of the grounds of certitude caps the climax. Tbe report of the Independent is a happy one, the writer evidently appreciating and enjoying the whole scene. Ha says Dr. Hunting* ton of New York read the first paper and that it was " very clear, well read and well received," yet as his position was open to criticism it would seem that his " ground of certitude " needed some previous ground of certitude to confirm it. The next speaker was Professor Sterrett, a well-known student of Hegel and expounder of his philosophy. " Hit paper was read under the moat hopeless disadvantages. He had not himself read it over since it was written ; it was about three times sb long »s biß time for reading would allow ; and he missed ont dozens of pages without in the least realising how th« parts retained would get joined together. Moreover, probably not twenty people in the audience had the faintest notion of the principles on which his propositions were based. The audience waa a delightful spectacle. Borne were trying to look as if they understood what was said. Some were blowing: their noses and wiping their eyes. Some were reading, or pretending to read the programmes. It was perfectly obvious that Professor Sterrett's paper— or fragments of a paper — was wholly and hopelessly above them." Of the next addreßS by Rev. Dr. R. Harris, of Brooklyn, N.Y, the writer says : " It is impossible to describe tbe rush and gush and drive of his delivery. The reporters — not the stupid roatine noodles of the Pailadelphia newspapers, but genuine steuograpbers— were baffled and unable to fol'.ow him. So was everybody else who heard him for the first time. The effect was ludicrous and awe inspiring. ' There is only one kind of certitude,' he said, or seemed to say, as the thunder and lightning of his rapid eloquence rushed by, ' viz , truth as apprehended by knowledge.' Probably the oracular statement was merely a whirr on the wings of rhetoric — or the rapidity of its utterance may have turned it upside down." " Truth as apprebeoded by knowledge " is excellent as a ground of certitude in every department of life. The next speaker was Dr. Bates, ot Cleveland, Ohio. His position was that " we may often get a clear view of trutn by considering its contradictory," which the reporter considered a very pregnant thought which the Doctor worked out well. But we are not at all surprised to learn that, " at tbe end of his speech, he very naturally arrived at our orthodox beliefs and when he came to Jesus Christ the audience welcomed what he had to Bay with wild applause. They felt as if thpy were getting out of a dismal hell of mere speculation into the sunny heaven of their own opinions." Could anything be more graphic or more amusing than that description 1 Could anything more admirabiy describe the Protestant position ou this important subject than "the dismal hell of mere speculation? " Their true happiness is in the " sunny heaven of their own opinions." We very much fear that Rev. W. M. Groton, of Wester y, R.1., who was the next speaker, will not appreciate the compliment paid him by our somewhat facetious reporter. " His speech," he says, " was applauded to the echo, and for the obvious reason that it had nothing in the remotest degree to do with the subject." And he continues : '' His speech was delightful and delusive. As a very edifying address at a prayei -meeting it was above all praise; as a contribution to a question of the profoundest metaphysics it was sbeer moonshine. But the audience was immensely relieved They finished wiping theii noses ana readiDg the programme ; they understood what was said ; they clapped their hands ana felt their hearts warm. And they had really listened to something which did them good, though it bad nothing whatever to do wiih ' the grounds of certitude.' " Tbat is certainly not very encouraging for the popular settlement of the great and important question. The last speaker was a volunteer, the Rev. Mr. Conger. He is represented as a very modest man, comiog forward with trembling "hands everywhere and nowhere— twitching, quivering, restless," but the wntpr thinks he will, soonpr or later, make his nurk, and that we shall unquestionably hear from him again. His statement was that " any proposition which is guaranteed by the united testimony of our spiritual nature is trustworthy." We sincerely hope we shall hear from Mr. Conger again, and thnt be will explain the meaning of his proposition. We trust he will especially see the importance of explaining how and wh^re the "united testimony of our spiritual nature " may be found. O«f when will our good, sincere, and zealous Protestant friends find their way out of the " dismal hell of mere speculation," not into the "sunny heaven of their own opinions," but into tbat haven of rest and peace in the Holy Catholic Church, which furnishes the only sure foundation and impregnable ground of certitude in

religion? We are glad the subject ig beiog discussed. The very agitation of the question is evidence that the necessity of having some ground of certitude is being more and more realised, and the discussion cannot but result in good in the end.