OUR PULPITS.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2466, 12 February 1881, Page 2

OUR PULPITS.

By P.R.

As I felt a fortnight ago when treating of the Church of Scotland, I feel now, that it is with a certain respectful diffidence that one attempts any review of a National Church. For, apart from the claims which every sacred institution must have upon our regard, there are to be considered in the case of a National Church, the fact that it has grown with the people, that it has shared all their vicissitudes, and that having been the moral and spiritual nursery of their succeeding generations, it is endeared to them by the strongest of ties. Those who have been constrained to quit the Church of their fathers know with what loving regard and remembrance they ever look back to it. We may build an imposing mansion for ourselves, we may change our customs and lead an altogether

different life, but the old home must still be dear to us. No change of circumstance or opinion can weaken the affectionate regard with which we gaze upon the home of our ancestors. And he who has quitted the Church of his fathers for the “ cheerless outside ” of doubtand unbelief, feels like an outcast. Standing in the mist and cold, his eyes are suffused with tears as he looks up to the lighted windows, hoars the music that was the delight of his childhood, and secs the familiar faces gathered round the board.

■ It is held b} r many outsiders that the Church of England is an off-shoot from the Homan Church, that came into separate and independent existence at the time of Henry the Eighth. But this view is not that of its members. They contend that it was in fact a purely Apostolic Church, that the Gospel was preached in Britain by Paul himself, and that when Augustine, commissioned by Pope Gregory, arrived there to proclaim the glad tidings, he found a Christian Church in full operation. And from this Apostolic foundation the Church of England confidently traces her descent. She thus places herself, as to the prestige of antiquity, on a par with the Homan Church.

The truth probably lies between the two statements. It. is quite likely that the Christian religion was planted in Britain without the aid of Home, even by Apostolic labours. But it is undeniable that the growth of the infant Church was fostered by Home, and its liturgy and ritual owe much to her. That it has always differed from the Homan Church has been due solely to the insularity of the British character, which has sturdily resisted any attempt to impose tiie authority of foreign princes, priests, or potentates. In effect, therefore, the two churches arc something “ more than kin ” though often “ less than kind.” It is as well to understand this in order that the claim of the Church of England to separate and distinct history may be properly estimated. Virtually, aud as a matter of fact the Ohurch of England as a religious bod}', is the Church of Home in a modified form, purged of some extreme doctrines and peculiar practices. It has been England’s good fortune to produce a number of patriotic men in her Church no less than in e\evy other department of her service, and the annals of the Church of England, no less than of every other, are full of the records of noble, unselfish and God-fearing lives, of persecution patiently endured, of death unflinchingly faced. It is certain that Augustine found the Church of England disposed to stand by its own rights, ami to resent anything like interference or dictation from even so high an authority as the Pope of Koine, and when in later days (albeit the occasion was not one to boast of) Henry the Eighth turned upon the Supreme Pontiff with a lion like defiance, he but gave voice to the pent up feelings of the British people. It may be that in later days the Church of England has “ coquetted with Koine” (although there is something to be said on the side of Kitualisrn —of which more anon) —but what 1 desire to point out to the reader is that throughout her long and eventful career she has faithful!} 7 maintained her independence in constitution and government. Her ritual, originally borrowed (as is maintained) from the Church at Ephesus incorporated with itself much that was Kornan, but her independence as a body has not thereby been affected. The two points in which the Church of England differs from the other churches that have grown out of her arc (1) that she maintains the throe orders of her ministry—bishops, priests, and deacons—to be in apostolic succession, and (2) that she employs in her service a prescribed liturgy. On these two grounds she has been fiercely assailed. It is not my purpose to discuss these points, but I shall place before the reader what may be said, and is said, on either side.

It appears from a careful review of the past that the Founder of Christianity chose from among his followers certain persons whom He commissioned to go forth into the world and preach the “ good tidings.” Whether He had prevision of the dimensions to which the Church which He thus founded would attain, does not appear in the commission which He gave his apostles, He clearly made no stipulation as to church government; that was to be arranged as might be deemed expedient. So long as the gospel was proclaimed the apostles might organise the work as they chose. Their modus openmdi was well considered and effectual. As they founded churches in the various districts, they appointed from among the members some to be servers, others priests or elders, and in each case an cpishopos or bishop. The idea of appointing three orders (deacons, priests, and bishops in ascending scale of importance and responsibility) appears a sound and excellent one, and the Church claims with much justice that she has faithfully adhered to apostolic usage by maintaining these orders. And she claims, with equal justice, that it is imperative that all who serve in the sanctuary should be solemnly appointed to such service, that in order to secure that things be done decently and in order, it is indispensable that the exercise of gifts, graces, and talents should be regulated by ecclesiastical law, otherwise unseemly brawling and and impudent self-assertion would take the place of reverent and well-ordered proceeding. A ministry so regulated soon became a recognised service, and attracted to it men of culture and enthusiasm, fired with lofty and laudable ambition. As long as the Church was, do facto , a militant body, striving to uphold its standard in peril, its ministers were self-denying heroic men. Hut when it had accumulated wealth, when it had achieved a position and was supported and patronised by the State and the higher classes of society, when the stimulus of persecution and poverty was withdrawn the use of the orders were lost sight of and abuses began to appeal 1 . It became an “ establishment,’’ and, although founded on a scriptural basis, it developed very much of a political chara, and the passport to. the ranks of its ministry was rather position, connection, or literary qualification than an earnest desire to labor in the vineyard. The aristocracy took it under their patronage, and it became a refuge for younger and portionless sons—for as some wit remarked, “The Church of England is the only religion fit for a gentleman.” The disparity between the stipends of poor curates and the revenues of Bishops, the abuses of tithes, sale of livings, patronage, simony et hoc genus omno degraded the Church very much in men’s eyes and brought the “ Apostolic succession ” into grievous disrepute. It was urged that the mantle uf the Apostles was worn threadbare,

thiit tlic outward “ pomp and circumstuncc,” and the inward lifelessucss of the present day contrasted ill with the hard work and the external plainness of Apostolic days. Thereupon some earnest men severed their connection with a church that had sunk into slumber and founded independent systems of worship, while others, less earnest but no less discontented, stuck to the fashionable church and contented themselves with outward observances. The unworthy lives of many of her ministers and the increasingly heavy burden of priestly authority assisted to bring the establishment into disrepute. _ The liturgy shared the odium attaching to the Church. For when the life of the Church was found to be drooping the beautiful words of her liturgy appeared but meaningless jargon. The advocates of the liturgy maintain that the prayers of the Church, the whole order of her service in effect, are so comprehensive, so simple, that they breathe so devout and pious a spirit that no composition could convey more fully and acceptably the hopes, the petitions, and the praise of man to the throne of grace. I think there are very few, if any, who do not heartily agree with this view : “the general confession,’’ the “ prayer for all sorts and conditions of men,” the “ thanksgiving,” the litany, that form part of the daily service of the Church, the collects, in which the different events of the Christian episode are commemorated, are simply imperishable memorials of the piety and learning of a bygone age. And tenderly as the Church conducts her children from the baptismal font to confirmation and the Supper of the Lord, “ through all the changing scenes of life,” solemnly as she joins their hands in marriage and tends them in sick beds, her supreme effort is put forth in the “ last scene of all.” Is not her Burial service a matchless composition, a marvel of touching simplicity and stately grandeur, that chides not grief but infuses into the mourner’s heart hope and confidence even as the dull sounds of the clods falling upon the coffin speak in hollow tones of the end that has come at last to the dead one’s career, and of the end of the bystander that is fast approaching ? A. great French author has recorded the unbounded admiration with which he listened to the English liturgy, and there is no son of the Church that has quitted her communion (whether for Koine or for what is usually called dissent), but looks back to her service with fond remembrance.

On tlic other aide it is urged that a liturgical service is a mechanical worship, lacking the lire and enthusiasm of extempore worship ; but really when one listens to the “ orations ” that are dignified by the name of prayer, the pomposity, the irreverence, or the verbosity that sometimes mar impromptu petitions, one is shocked and disgusted. These, however, are “incidental ” occurences and do not appear where the service is conducted by men of culture.

Of late years the Church of England has been much agitated. She has discovered heterodoxy in various quarters, and has found herself powerless to excommunicate, or even deprive of office, many of her ministers who have gone doctrinal!}' astray, and this has awakened a good deal of indignant comment. We have witnessed the edifying spectacle of a bishop holding and openly proclaiming utterly heterodox view, and, in defiance of his ecclesiastical superiors, holding rank and pocketing revenne from a church whose teaching he denies, and which yet is powerless to turn him out! The other disturbing element is Ritualism. I am not going to discuss this matter. We have heard of the genuflexions, the vestments, the candles, the Mariolatry, the “ real presence,” the confessional, and many persons feel a a good deal of contempt for these practices in connection with the Church of England, but I very much doubt whether llitualism is not indeed coming to the rescue of a falling Church. For the first time for centuries the Church of England has, through her Ritualist clergy, really reached the hearts of the lower classes of society, and won them by an elaborate ritual to attendance at the sanctuary. The Ritualist clergy at least have succeeded in restoring something of the laboriousness and charity of Apostolic days, no body of men can be more self-denying and devoted. And if, by their labors, their immense charities, their attractive and gorgeous ritual, they win souls from among the poor and depraved, the afllicted and ignorant populace of our English cities, to take the first step towards a better life by attending Church, they will have deserved some consideration from the community in which they labor.

There is an air of intense respectability about the congregation of Saint Mary’s, Timaru. A better dressed, a more orderly, more respectable gathering could hardly be seen in the colonies. There is a comfortable, complacent air about the people as they pass in and take their places in a decorous and gentlemanly sort of way. The vestrymen are attentive to strangers and conduct them to seats, and the zealous verger leaves no item of his duty undone. The service is choral, that is to say the prayers are intoned and the Psalms chanted, the choristers being surpliccd. A good deal used to be said against the surplice, but I think no one, looking at the matter dispassionately can grumble at seeing everyone engaged in ministration robed in the same garb, which conceals contrasts, disparities, and peculiarities, and is at least decent and becoming. The music at Saint Mary’s has been brought as near perfection as an indefatigable, enthusiastic organist and choir master, backed by a devoted choir, could bring it. The people, however, are content to admire the musical display, and evidently don’t like to spoil the harmony by an}' efforts of their own. Might not the choirpractice be advantageously opened to members of the congregation ? The Archdeacon is decorous, reverent, and punctilious in every word and gesture —an English clergyman of the straitest” sort. His reading and rendering of the service arc devout, and indicate a mind deeply impressed, but there is about him a peculiar guardedness and even exaggerated propriety which attach peculiarly to his order—that dwarfs the individuality of the man too much. Even his tone of voice is so conventional as to be almost unnatural, and the service losses half its impressiveness from imperfect rendition. The man seems trammelled by the weight of his clerical character. If only he would emerge from this conventional restraint and be wholly natural!

I am quite aware that I apeak of one whose failings are those of the order to which he belongs, while his virtues arc all his own. His charity is, I am aware, all but boundless, his devotion to his

Church all absorbing. I for my own part, willingly concede that he is of the Bayard stamp—sans jpeur et sans reprochc—of spotless life and firm faith. These men steer a little “ wide” certainly when they address men of the world, but that is due to narrowness of experience and education. One can’t sec the world in its proper aspect through a stained-glass window. The associations throughout life of most clergymen of the Establishment are not such as to admit of their taking very comprehensive views of men and things. Tnereforc the statements and admonitions of clergymen must be, as a rule, accepted cum fjrano sails. The Archdeacon’s sermon was upon the text, “ The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” -ILs analysis ot this passage was exceedingly good--he took pains to define the “ fear ” spoken of. Most of our spiritual teachers are somewhat slip-shod. in the matter of definition, and it is refreshing to find here and there one who will take the trouble to fasten the minds of his auditory upon tangible meanings of terms. The Archdeacon has a tendency to “branch out” and quit the point occasionally in pursuit, of an idea that attracts him like a flower by the wayside, which causes the listener to get a little mixed. His delivery is earnest and his presence good, but he is not by any means an orator, nor does he carry his congregation with him. As a rule, however, Anglican congregations, like the House of Commons, object to be “ carried along.” Such a state of things verges on republicanism, and that thing the establishment doth mortally detest. A decorous calm and a devout sleepiness must pervade the Church. The offertory is collected, or “ taken up,” as, I believe, our Scotch friends would say, by Churchwardens who, having finished the collection place place themselves each at the lower end of the aisle and, signo daio, inarch up to the Communion rails, deliver up the bags, and facing to the right-about return to their seats. Everything is done “ decently and in order.” The ‘‘ prayer for the whole State of Christ’s Church militant here on Earth ” follows, the Benediction brings the proceedings to a close, and the organist “plays” the congregation out. As they slowly file out they occupy themselves with very close scrutiny of their neighbors, and exhibit much exclusiveness and very ; little fraternity, wherein they appear at a disadvantage by comparison with the dissenters and Presbyterians, who have and maintain a bond of union among themselves, and are not too apprehensive of being caught exchanging greetings with others not in their own “ set.”