THE 'ARCHBISHOP OF YORK AND THE LATE F. D. MAURICE.
ITO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
think the Archbishop of York is, on his own showing, rather unfair to Colonel Maurice in his letter to the Tines of Tuesday last. In the " Memoir " of Maurice, the Archbishop is represented as having said of Mansel that the matter of his famous Oxford Lectures was, " in its essence, unalloyed Atheism." To this, the Archbishop replies that it is inconceivable that be should ever have charged Mr. Mansel with preaching Atheism, "worse, let us say, than Thomas Paine." Dr. Thomson is a great master of logic. Can be, on calmer reflection, defend the logic here employed ?
A theological lecturer declare3 that there is a God, but that he cannot be known. Some one retorts that such a doctrine is "essentially Atheism." Is it q'ite fair, by means of a skilful.
juxtaposition of the name of Tom Paine, to insinuate that Mr. Memel was charged with preaching that no God exists ?
The Archbishop admits that he believed Mr. Mansel's method of defending the " Anglican position " was one that might be used with effect to defend other Christian systems ; even some "that were not Christian." Does his Grace think that this criticism is much less severe than that which Colonel Maurice believed him to have uttered in conversation with his father ? Colonel Maurice is at this moment, I believe, with Lord Wolseley in Egypt. It will be a subject of regret to the Archbishop that the author of the offending paragraphs will be unable for a long time to reply to the charges brought against him.—I am, Sir, &c., A LONDON CLERGYMAN.
[We do not quite understand why " essential Atheism may not be regarded as in some sense worse than even Tom Paine's Deism. With our correspondent's last paragraph we agree. Though we never supposed for a moment that Dean Mansel, in maintaining the existence of an essentially unknowable God, intended to deprive Christian worship of its depth and warmth, we do hold heartily with Mr. Maurice that the drift of Dean Mansel's views was undoubtedly to Agnosticism, and Agnosticism for practical purposes is little better than Atheism.—En. spectator.)
Previous page
