FATHER HYACINTHS IN LONDON.

Evening Star, Issue 4210, 24 August 1876, Page 3

FATHER HYACINTHS IN LONDON.

On June 16 Mons. Loyson (Pere Hyacinthe) delivered an address before a crowded audience in St. Georfie’s Hall, Langbam Place, London, on “ The Prospects of Christendom.” The chair was taken by Dr Harold Browne, Bishop of Winchester, who was supported by the Duke of Argyll, K.G.; Dean Stanley, the Dean of Chester, Mr Cowper-Temple, Lord Elbury, and Lord A. Russell.,: The Duchess of Argyll, Lady Selborne, Mrs Gladstone, and Madame Loyson were also present. The Chairman, who apologised for the absence of the Archbishop of * Canterbury, introduced Mr Loyson to the faceting, remarking that his history was well known. We in England, who 350 years ago threw off that power which neither we or our fathers could bear, and had not found ouriselves morally, socially, or religiously the worse for doing so, could not but sympathise with Pere Hyacinthe in the effort he was making not only to do his own duty, but to enlighten Continental Europe on the great question on which we believed we had ourselves been enlightened for a considerable time.—(Applahse.) Pere Hyacinthe, who spoke in French and with great fervor, expressed the pleasure which he felt in. opening the proceedings with prayer and in the ; chair being taken by an English bishop who had been present, at the Old Catholic Congress at Cologne. He intended to-day to dwell on the necessity for the solution of the problems existing in the Latin Church, and the need of reforms. The battle, he said, which was formerly carried on between the priests and the Empire had given place to a war between the Church and modern society. There were three solutions to the modern conflict which had been proposed—one in the name of science, and two on the part of politics. Science suggested the elimination of religion from the world. Politicians of different orders asked for the separation of Church and State, and proposed to subject a Church to the State. As to eliminating religion altogether, and making it give place to science, that amounted to the separation of religion from humanity. Even if that could be carried out, it would be a dangerous and even a fatal step, and opposed to every sound principle. There were men of the Positive school, some of whom were eminent and had done good work, but he could not accept the theories they put lorward in reference to reference to religion, for those theories did not accord with many known facts. Positivism might have its advantages taken in connection with some parts of science, but it could not adequately cope with and satisfy the cares and sorrows, fears and hopes, the love and hatred of human nature. It ignored many phases of human nature, disregarded a number of historical facts, and offered no explanation of the continued existence of the Jews as a distinct race. Positivism must fail to solve the greatest problems of any—he meant those having to do with death and with God. At the same time he did not wish to ignore reason in studying religion, for he believed there was an inseparable connection between the two. Coming to the proposal of politicians to disunite Church and State, he thought that phrase was often used with vague and contradictory meanings, which depended on the aspect in which the subject was viewed by different persons. He did not believe that from any point of view was the separation of Church and State calculated to supply an adequate solution of the existing difficulty. It would be almost impossible for the Church and the Stare mutually to ignore each other. Family life and the life of the State were so closely connected with divine life that to think of separating religious from social questions was a chimera. Religion must enter into the temple of justice, and have a bearing on all that affected the interests of humanity, and it should never give up that role. In reference to the union of liberty with the progress of religion, there were difficulties involved, but he contended that it was not impracticable, as that which was impossible to men was nevertheless possible with God. The lecturer in an eloquent peroration alluded to the mountain of obstructions placed in the way of modern religion, and reminded his hearers of the Scriptural teaching, that by faith such mountains might be removed. Pere Hyacinthe then resumed his seat, having been frequently applauded duiing his oration, which occupied nearly an hour, Xtfany persons were unable to gain admission to St. George's Hall.— < Scotsman.’