The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1904. CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 96, 22 April 1904, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1904. CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

i ■ For ihe cause that tacks assistance. For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance. And ihe good that we can- do.

Mr. Balfour's decision to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into : 'the alleged continuance of ecclesiastical disorders" in the English Church will meet with the cordial approval of the great majority of either the partizans or the critics of the Establishment- Most High Churchmen hold that the "excesses in ritual" of which complaints are frequently heard are confined to a small section of the Anglican priesthood, and that the difficulty of drawing the line between orthodoxy and heresy is quite sufficient to excuse the confusion now undoubtedly prevailing throughout the Church of England on such questions. The Low Churchmen, on the other hand, who have always insisted upon the "constitutional obligation" of the clergy to the Church Courts, will be glad to have the limits of episcopal authority clearly defined. In any case there seems to be no doubt that it is time some such step was taken, and the commission proposed by Mr. Balfour will probably command the confidence and respect of not only the members of the Anglican communion, but of the nation at large. For this question is not one that concerns merely the priesthood and the episcopacy. So long as the Establishment is maintained, the nation as a whole has a right to know that the purposes for which it was set up are being kept steadily ia view; and the bitter controversies that have of late years divided the English Church render such an assurance eminently desirable. Unfortunately we need not search far for evidence to prove that among churchmen of all shades of opinion grave doubt exists as to whether the present condition of the English Church tends towards the vitality and the spiritual efficiency of Anglican Protestantism. Within the last ten years complaints as to ritualistic and Romish practices and the propagation of heretical doctrines have been constantly forced upon the notice of the ecclesiastical authorities; and the rulers of the Church themselves have freely admitted the truth of these charges. When Mr. Kensit's first petition was laid before convocation neither the Archbishop nor any of the 22 Bishops present cast any doubt upon the truth of the allegation that services not to be found in the Book of Common Prayer were in constant use in English Churches. No one even' suggested that the charges of the "brawler" were exaggerated. Dr. Creighton, then Bishop of London, admitted that in some of his churches services were celebrated which seemed to him "opposed to the principle of the Church of England" The Bishop of Winchester asserted that many of the services permitted in English Churches were "the kind that brought about the Reformation 300 years ago." The Bishop Rochester declared that the peace of the Church was broken by "ecclesiastical marauders;" while the Bishop of Southwell, after confirming the prevalence of ritual- | istic practices, spoke of "secret societies undermining the teaching of the Church c-f England." Five years ago, therefore, it was admitted by some of the foremost churchmen of the day that many mera-

berg of the Anglican priesthood were engaged in "undoing the work of the Reformation." And no one who had observed the course of events in connection with recent church history will be disposed to believe that matters have since changed seriously for the better. .

The position of the Church Courts in this connection is certainly not an enviable one. It is by no means easy to arrive at a rational and comprehensive statement of Church doctrine or ritual which shall satisfy even a majority of Anglicans, and we can well understand the scrupulous hesitation which has withheld the rulers of the Church from pronouncing too dogmatically on such vexed questions as the use of incense and the wearing of vestments, auricular confession, itnd absolution. But the case aeainst the bishops is not that' they have refrained too long from coming to a definite conclusion on such subjects, but that, having spoken, they have not exacted due obedience to their authority. For example, when in 1900 the Archbishops' Court decided that the use of incense in the ritual of the Anglican Church was illegal, the order to discontinue the practice was disoDeyed with absolute impunity. ■ Frequent episcopal recommendations to abstain from services and ceremonials of a type unquestionably non-Anglican have been in many cases calmly ignored without any serious consequences. The case of the Rev. H. M. Evans, of Shpreditch, was a notorious instance of the fiat defiance of a bishop by his subordinate; but it was only after threats and warnings extending over two years that the Bishop of London proceeded against his rebellious priest, who forthwith betook himself and a large part of his congregation to the neighbouring Roman Catholic Church. We do not imply that all instances of ritualism or of disobedience to episcopal authority necessarily indicate conversion to Romanism; but the fact remains that irregularities of many kind are still obstinately practised by Anglican priests in a manner calculated to weaken the influence of the accepted form of Anglicanism, and to subvert the authority of the rulers of the Established Church. It is to strengthen the hands of the ecclesiastical courts in dealing with such instances of sedition or rebellion that Mr Balfour has suggested a Royal Commission on Church discipline. Less than a year since an influential deputation of churchmen waited upon the Archbishops and expressed not only serious alarm at the growth of heterodox practices within the limits of the Church, but an earnest desire that such irregularities should be checked. The Archbishop of Canterbury then assured the Church that the responsibility for the right conduct of ecclesiastical affairs lay with the .bishops, and he would use his utmost influence to see that tlie episcopal authority should be enforced in all its vigour against recalcitrant priests. This, indeed, is the only aspect of the case in which the nation as a whole can claim to be interested. Doubtless the priests guilty of infringing the rules laid down by their bishops are actuated by the best and most conscientious motives. But it is intolerable that men who have bound themselves by solemn.vows to forward the interests of Anglicanism, and to obey the commands of their ecclesiastical superiors, should while continuing to draw their support from Church revenues arrogate to them« selves the right to over-ride or defy the express commands of their bishops, and to persist in conduct which the highest authorities of the Church have specifically condemned. Mr Balfour's Commission has no easy task before it, but if it succeeds in establishing the conception of Church Discipline upon some sound and rational basis, it will have performed _. great, and even indispensable, service to the Church and the nation.