VOICE FROM THE DOCK.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1085, 25 March 1911, Page 6

VOICE FROM THE DOCK.

DR. MACKELLAR ON IRISH ANGLICANS. SOME FEIEXDIiY COMMENTS. (By "Optimist.") Dr. Mac'cellnr's article on Irish Anglicans published in last Saturday's Dominion*, suggests to one's mind a sort of triangular picture, with the Englishman at one corner of tho bay;, the Irishman at the other, and the Scotsman at thu apex sitting in judgment like Jupiter 011 high Olympus. Tho verdict was 011 tho whole in favour of the Celt; but the Englishman, though severely handle*, was in the end recommended to mercy 011 tho ground that he is not wholly and hopelessly bad. Ho may yet be saved, but only by the skin of his teeth, and not without the help of hi.s warm-hearted Irish brother. However, Dr. Mackellar is only cruel m order to be kind, and lie writes so courteously that even if the verdict had gone the other way—and after all the man from the "disthrossful" country did not get off quite scathless—the good-natured judge would have trodden so lightly 011 the Celtic coat-tail that tho most impetuous son of Ireland could not liavo regarded tho incident as a casus belli. Too Pessimistic. Every candid English churchman must admit the truth of much, perhaps most, of Di. Mackellat's criticism, but his picture, taken as a whole, is a little overdrawn 011 the pessimistic side. The Church is really not as black as ho paints her. For instance, he tells us that "the Church ut England is only national in the senses that it is recognised by the State, not because it is essentially the Church that the people revere and love." This is not quite just, let alone merciful. With all her faults, thero are thousands of people who still lovo and revere the Church of England; and it is often those—and I think I may include Dr. Mackellar among them—who are most keenly aware of her faults who lovo her most. It is true that her cold and worldly leaders in tho eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries alienated many of the most eager, enthusiastic, and religious people; but it would lie a great mistake to run away with the idea that religious, enthusiastic, and eager Churchmen have ceased to exist.

The English Anglican may not be 1 so unreserved and demonstrative in tho expression of his religion as some of those who have ceased to look to. Canterbury. In his morbid dread that people should think him better than ho is, he often goes to the other extreme and makes himself appear worse than actual fact warrants. Dr. Stubbs, the great historian Bishop, whom Dr. Mackellar mentioned in his article, was in this respect a typical English Anglican. His biographer tells us that religious affectation was his especial abhorrence, and ho dreaded it in himself with a peculiar dread. Ho seemed to lly to the opposite extreme, and in his fear of appearing to claim goodness in himself ho camo to pretend not to bo so good as he was. "It is my form of hypocrisy, 1 ' he once said. Yet, as Professor Scott Holland says, behind it all was a man of intense emotional passion, who dared not let himself go. . This fact often gave startling interest to theso utterances in which he broke through his habitual reserve. English Churchmen cannot always bn judged by appearances. They do not wear their liearis on their sleeves.

A Question of Tendency, "111 tlio Church tho whole tendency is monarchical," says Dr. Jlackcllar. I must join issuo with liini here. If lie had stated that the monarchical element in the episcopato still survives, 110 would have been correct; but tho facts of actual history unmistakably indicate that the tendency is away from the monarchical idea, and back to the patriarchal democracy of primitivo Christianity. If we want to find types of the monarchical episcopate, wo must thp prince,bishops of the eighteenth 'cciitury ana tho earlier years of tho nineteenth. Those great, erastian ecclesiastics lived in magnificent state and fared sumptuously every day. A bishop in those days, as Jlr. G. V'. K. Russell tells us in his "Collections and Recollections," was a "formidable person and surrounded by a dignity scarcely less than royal," and had to bo "approached on gilt-edged paper." Once a week the Archbishop of Canterbury of those "good old days" "dined in stato in tho great hall of Lambeth, while, to use tlie words 01* Sydney Smith, "tho domestics of tho prelacy stood with swords at bag-wigs round pig, and turkey, and venison, to defend, as it were, the'orthodox gastronome from tho fierce Unitarian, the fell Baptist, and all the famished children of dissent.'" Archbishop Harcourt • never went from Bishopsthorpo to York. Minster except attended by his chaplains and in a' coach and six, while at Durham tho Bishop, as I'rinco Palatine, exorcised sccular jurisdiction both civil and criminal, and tho Commission at the Assizes ran in tlie name of "Our Lord'the Bishop." "This grand tradition of mingled, splendour and profit ran down in duo degree," Mr. Russell tells us, "through all ranks of the hierarchy." What a contrast with tho simplicity of life of tho bishops of to-day, some of whom may almost be regarded as ascetics. An absolute revolution has taken place. The prince bishop is as extinct as tho dodo, and in his place wo have the primitivo and prayer-book conception of "the father in God." The tendency has been back lo the simplicity of tht; early days of tho Church, when, as Bishop Gore toils us, ' each bishop was surrounded by his presbyters, who constituted with him the governing body..' And they in their turn had around them tho whole body of the brethren: and the higher the common level of tho Christian life, the less was tho spiritual difference between clergy and laity."

The Church and the People. The monarchical bishop cannot exist in llie free atmosphere of the Church in Now Zealand, for tho Church constitution ensures that the dioceso and province can only be governed by bishops, clergy, and laity in co-operation. Ideally, the Anglican" Church is in a very real sense democratic, though that term is not hie and broad enough to describe the position. A democracy may be fundamentally individualistic," whereas the Church is a great family or society. If wc could divest the •word'"socialistic" of some of its unhappy political associations, it would iit tho ease more adequately than the word "democratic." The Church is-described as a body, a communion, a fellowship, and its members are members one of another. The sacerdotal power sliotiitl bo regarded as residing in tho whole body, tho clergy acting in a representative capacity, and not as a distinct castc separated from their brethren. The Anglican conception of the Sacraments is intensely socialistic; they aro permanent witnesses to the oneness of the brotherhood. This, of cours?. represent* the ideal; but it is tlie business of Churchmen in this twentieth century to realise this ideal—to make it actual. In the world as wo find it, there always'sccms to lie a great gulf fixed between, the ideal and the real, and the best, men in every age aro constantly occupied in bridging this gulf. So tho world slowly struggles up I lie hill from good to boiler, and,' finally, lei us hope, from better to tho best—the divine idea realised.

Preparing for tlie Next Advance,

Dr. Mackcllar closed his article with words of hope for tho good time coming with which I cordially agree. The Anglican Church at the present moment is, as it were, marking time, while her intellectual and spiritual leaders are courageouslv grappling with the new light and new " ideas—moral, historical, scientific, social, and philosophical—with which modern thought is flooding the world. These now ideas must he, to use tho words of Professor I'ercy Gardner, "baptised unto Christ." This prcecss of religious reconstruction goes oil in every age; but is most ne'.ivo in great creativo periods of human history such as the present, when men dream dreams and see visions. It is a process of evolutionary growth in which continuity is preserved throughout ail changes. But this continuity is not mechanical; it is not of the letter, but of tho spirit. Tho Anglican Church e!iii approach the problems of modern thought, with an open mind, and face the future without dismay. And when the time is ripe for tiio next great step in advance—and that time is perhaps nearer than nio'.t people think—my firm conviction is that slio will not be found lagging behind. The leaven is at work, and the result may surpviso the world. That is the opinion of many competent observers,