THE MILITARY SERVICE ACT AND THE CLERGY

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3061, 24 April 1917, Page 4

THE MILITARY SERVICE ACT AND THE CLERGY

PRONOUNCEMENT

Tho Primate has, through the columns of the "Church .Envoy," addrcssod'the clergy and laity of the diflccse of Dunedin" in the. following terms:—

Tho inclusion of tho i clergy within' the scope of the operation of the Military Service Act of tbo ' Legislature places them in a position they have never occupied before, so far as my knowledge goes, if .wo except the recent action of tho State in France.The question, therefore, of the members of tho spiritual order being engaged in deeds of blood has not hitherto been "brought before tho public* mind; it was never supposed that they would bo so engaged.

Tile passing of the Act has not only put the clergy generally into a. novel and unexpected position, but has placed the bishops especially in a position of grave difficulty. That difficulty is_ iii fact two-fold. There is tho practical difficulty 1 of''the depletion to a greater or lose extent of their dioceses, andthere is also the difficulty, thus raised, of their maintaining for the present arid the future the age-long rule of the Church that the clergy must not fight.Tho bishops of our Church in New Zealand have thought that their best course would bo to rely upon the assurance given by those in high zu-> thority that exemption would be given: wjiere they -wore ahle to declare, on' appeal, that a clergyman :who had Been called up by the ballot Was iiecessary for-tho carrying on of their -work,vand : that his removal would be agahißt the--public This point;' however, ni tho last resort rests with the Appeal, Board .to decido.- No doubt telianW; upon the decision of the Appeal Board and the suppression of all, reference ,to the rules of the-Church-avoids the* rousing of feelings'which may, be stirred by the public affirmation of a.dis- 1 tinctive position which had almost' been lost sight Of by the ■ people at large; . but inasmuch as it is always possible for the board to dismiss an appeal an<3 v therefore to send a priest to bear arms, and because the consciences of tho clergy ought, to be respected, I feel it to be my duty, dear Brethren, to declare that every as a servant of tho Church and bound by her rules, has a right to claim exemption on the conscientious grounds, admitted by the Act itself. This wiU'appear more clearly when I remind you that it is.ofr the essence of our being that we are art integral part of the Catholio Church, on the: authority of .which. we accept the Apostles' and the Niceno-Constaatino-politan Creeds, and that the fourth oftho Genoral Councils, held in the year 451, before the division of the_Cburch, contained ,a. canon against the bearing of arms by the clergy. Provincial Councils, both before:and after that date, also forbade this. These Primitive Councils, ale acknowledged byvc-Ur Church; and 6ince the Eeformation are .Quoted...as of - f orcer-as, for.._examt>le, : "in the first year of Queen Elizabeth a. commission'was 6et up by Parliament to inquire into, certain- allegations; of ■ heretical teaching, and-the commissioners were instructed to .guide them- ■ selves by "the -Holy Scriptures and •the decisions of the first four Genera 17 .Councils of the. Church." Again, one of-tho Thirty-nine Articles of thepostReformation Church—to which our Provincial Church of New Zealand has bound herself —is entitled "On the authority of General Councils" j and Bishop Burnett, commenting upon this in the year 1686, says plainly that our Church accepts the decisions of the first four General Councils, while Bishop Harold Browne, of our Own day, affirms that! we receive the decrees of the first sis General Councils on the ground that the fifth and sixth are confirmatory of tho third and fourth respectively. I should add also that the Archbishop of Canterbury,"!'l a recent speech delivered in the House of Lords, makes the 6ame claim, and thanks the Houses of Par- . liament for having excluded the clergy, from the operation of their Military, Service Bill, •'-,,, _ , [ This brief account should suffice not only -to remind the of Our insistent claim to be. one. with the Primitive Church, but to show thaioUr priests have ati 'equal right with those of the Roman communion to claim; exemption from military service on conscientious grounds. Nor do I claim the fulo merely on' account of its antiquity, hut' because the reasons which gavo rise to its imposition in the first instance are of perpetual force— namely, that the ordination imparts a; ■character to the- ordained which makes it wrong for him to quit- his sacred duties for any less spiritual occupations. I think, too, that such a. iwihoiple is implied by the words, of our Corel: "Let the dead bury their dead, hut go thou and preach tho Kingdom of God." And surely tho farewell commission of Christ .to the Apostles and the sacramental.bestowal upon them of the Holy Ghost by a divince aff atiOn meant the endowment of the Church for all time with spiritual function afld m-ace which renders carnal warfare an incongruity which should be patent to

"Wo aro informed that priests who.obiPct to act as soldiers on the religions grounds I have set forth will ho .exempted from strictly military service, hut would bo sent by the board to.iia as non-combatants. Under such circumstances I should bavo to declare that I could not spare one of them, atid appeal as strongly as I could in" tho interests of our lay people, and earnestly hope that I should he listened to on these grounds. BuV I feel it to bo my duty to sot forth tho lull position, and I will go so far as lo say that to my mind, it it, must be, 1 regard tho temporary loss of the services of u clergyman to a particular district—serious as that would be—.ls a lesser evil than the infringement of tho Church's rule-> by the sending of one to bo the instrument of shedding the blood of his fellow man whosa hands wcro dedicated to tho consecration of the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. In a prescript the Primate adds: After shell words I scarcely care to refer to -a trivial objection, founded on ignorance, which is brought forward against what I have written. It is that bißhops themselves \yero in times past sometimes ouw.aged in war. The direct answer to tnis is that nevertheless \tho priests wcro not, and a littlo inquiry into the matter will show that bishops wero summoned along with, other barons as vassals of the King, and holding their lands of him in fief, and so liable to his service; to refuse service would b,e to incur the penalties of treason. But they were -usually employed rather as 'King's councillors than as warriors, and could be excused if spiritual duties demanded their attention. It was the bishop's following, held under his feoff, that the King required rather than tho maa hins^f.