AN APPEAL FROM CHRISTCHURCH.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1336, 13 January 1912, Page 4

AN APPEAL FROM CHRISTCHURCH.

We have received a letter from a correspondent in Christchurch complaining of the action, or rather inaction, of the Anglican Bishop of that Diocese (Dr. Julius) in regard to certain alleged ritualistic practices, and asking for our support in an anti-ritual campaign. We do not, however,' see that any useful purpose can be served by opening the ilood-gatcs of controversy on this most debatable question concerning which almost everything that can be said has already been said over and over again. Moreover, we do not see that our correspondent has exhausted all his legal remedies. If in a certain church in Christchurch, of which he is a parishioner, illegal ritual has been practised, it is open for him to take action in the Diocesan" Court which exists for that purpose. If the ritual is not illegal, out only different from what certain individuals in the parish have been accustomed to, would it not be a very undesirable thing to invoke episcopal interference for the purpose of overriding the autonomy of the parish 1 The Bishop occupies a constitutional position and can only act within the law of the Church. He is not a sort of irresponsible despot with unlimited authority-to march up and down his Diocese and insist upon a cast-iron type of service in accordance with his personal likes and dislikes. The late Archbishop Temple, on a memorable occasion, said: "You cannot narrow the Church of England." Ever since the Information there have been three great parties in the Church—High, Low, and Broad—and it is a bishop's duty to hold the balance impartially between these parties and to allow none of them to capture the Church. Each section stands for certain great_ principles and has its special contribution to make to tho life of the Church as-a whole. Each party should firmly claim for itself and willingly extend to others all the liberty of thought and ritual consistent with loyalty to the Prayer Book (which is the accepted standard of worship), and the law of the Church. We believe that Bishop Jdlius would be one of the first to recognise these principles, and our correspondent is hardly correct in stating that Dr. Julius has flouted the anti-ritual memorial addressed to him. In his charge to the Christchurch Synod in 'September last he went fully into the matter. He stated his policy very frankly and gave the reasons on which it was based. His final conclusion, however; leaves one with a feeling of uncertainty. Is he not overstating the case when he says that the Bishop "has absilute authority in the matter of discipline?" If this is so, what does lie mean when lie states that "the Courts appointed for the settlement of such differences are our . own Church Courts" 1 It is true that the Bishop has power to veto frivolous or vexatious charges against clergymen, but this right should be exercised only with great care. It would be a very serious matter if any Bishop were to stretch this power of veto to tho extent of practically closing tho Church Courts to aggrieved Churchmen. We cannot think that the Bishop of Christchurch means to do this, but it is to bo, regretted that he did not express himself a little more clearly on this point. Every loyal Anglican will sympathise with the Bisliop in his aversion to ritual for in the mind of the average layman the line between prosecution and persecution in religious matters 13 a very fine one. There are signs that v tho Anglican Church is moving towards a more satisfactory moduii vivendi between the different schools of thought, and it is quite certain that the great mass of central opinion in the Church will insist upon inclusion, not exclusion, as one of the fundamental principles of any fiual settlement. Wc feel sure that our correspondent would deplore any action which would practically declare to the world that there is no room in the Anglican Church for that great school of thought represented by such men as Gladstone, Keble, Liddon, Creiohton, Stubbs, and Gore. There should be give-and-take in this matter of ritual—a spirit of unity in diversity, with room for growth and expansion, and the Church should be able by a natural process of development to adapt its services from time to time to meet the special needs and altered circumstances of each new age. _ It is a mistake to think that religious ccrcmonial is a matter of no importance. A recent Bampton lecturer at Oxford put the Anglican position very fairly when he said that ceremony and ritual are an essential part of the life of an organised Church. Man is a creature of sense as well as intellect; and while the mind properly demands a reasonable account of the grounds of faith, the senses, too, cannot safely be refused their , share in worship. From the beginning, so a leading authority on comparative religion tells us, the religious consciousness has always expressed itself in outward acts or rites. _ The experience of the human race is testimony that rites are indispensable in the same way and _ for the same reason that language is indispensable to thought; but they are not religion, indispensable though they be to it. They are not ends in themselves, but means to an end. Such being the case it is not surprising to find many good Churchmen urging that it is high time that the Anglican Church ceased from wasting its energies in strife over matters of sec-ondary-importance, and devoted its undivided attention to tho main work for which it exists—the extension of the Kingdom of God on .earth.