REFRESHER COURSE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16583, 16 November 1921, Page 5

REFRESHER COURSE.

DOLLED! HOUSE LECTURES*

Bishop Julius inaugurated the refresher course of lectures at College House, taking for his subject “The Priest in his Home.” His Lordship said that what he would have to say would bo the product of his own experience. Jn England, Australia and New Zealand he had had a great variety of experiences, aud he hoped to bo able to do some good by endeavouring to generalise from them. Ho knew Ilia own shortcomings and in what he had to say there was no conscious application to any individual whatsoever. The office of the priest was one of great difficulty. St Paul himself found it so. There was no place in the Christian ministry for conceit or boastfulucßS. The man who ielded to thee© showed he nad no idea of his own deficiencies. The difficulties of the priest to-day were greater than they had ever been before. Thera were peculiar difficulties for the Church of England. There were more demands on the parish priest, and the liberty allowed him was greater than ever before. This very liberty was a source of difficulty. The self-discipline and self-command which the English priest must exercise were greater than ia those of any other Church. In the matter of celibacy, the priest was placed in exactly -the same position a a the layman. This was a great break with the past. Henry Vlll. passed the most stringent law in regard to the celibacy of the clergy. Ho was just the man who would. Irregularities were frequent, and tho Church of England reoognised facts and allowed the marriage of her priests. In the early days of the Church celibacy had more justification when men felt they must devote themselves wholly to tho service of God. When celibacy began to be enforced as a law, it was largely a matter of expediency. The Pope found, as tho Bishop himself had. that it was much easier to deal with an unmarried than with a married clergy. In the Church of England both states wore recognised, and recognised thankfully. The blessings and grace of the lives of celibate men aud the power exercised by the influence of the sacred padestly home were alike "a great source of inspiration to the Church. The difficulties of the married clergyman were enormous. Subject to the close scrutiny of his people be had to give an example of humility and piety. There was no law against tho clergy marrying as soon as ordained, but no doubt a too early or a too hasty marriage was a great danger. There was one rule for man and this was the rule of God. The judicious Hooker himself had come to much sorrow on this matter, and there was no wonder that some of the young priests should fail in the choice of a wife. The priest’s wife must be devout. She must be a lady, in the truest sense of that word—by no means in its social sense. No man would ever do good work in the Church with an untidy vicarage. A house that was desolate when one got inside was not so by reason of poverty at all. The poorest homes often excelled those of the richest in tidiness, order and discipline. The priest must be helpful in the home. A priest who was not practical would not have much influence in the parish. “ You cannot,” lie said, ” trust your soul to a man who will lead a horse head first into the shafts.” Cheerfulness in the home was essential. The monotony of a woman’s life was often not realised. The priest came home after a day of varied interests, and liis wife suffered if he thought himself tired. The man who had no time for little things to help his wife was often the laziest man in the parish. Many of us waste an awful lot of time, because wc do not set about our work methodically. Tho children of the English vicarago had. in general, taken high places and done great work, but there were children and there were vicarages where the influence was by no means good. The children were a priest’s most thorough critics. A man might be “ a saint outside, and a devil in his house.” If a man was too good and too solemn a man to play with his children, then God help him. Many priests were desperately interested in general education, but they cared nothing for that of their own children. The radiance and beauty of some homes had shed glory on the Church, but the reverse of tho picture was often too frequently seen. He commended to his hearers the necessity of preserving a sacred and beautiful home life. Professor Sabnond spoke on “ The Moral Progress of Man in the Past.” He said that the knowledge of the evil in the world to-day must cause them great distress, but a glance at the past relieved their depression. The remarkable fact was not that they have made such little progress but that they had made so much. In estimating the moral progress of man. j they must consider not individuals but the mass of men. In all times there had been great individuals. They had to consider how far masses of men had evolved higher ideals than masses of men in the past. The fact of progress in morality was the first thing that the moralist must be able to explain. The moralist did not deny the permanence of some moral laws, but he maintained the fact that changing conditions were accompanied by changing laws. The evolutionary school had affirmed that they must always explain morality from its beginnings. The Hedonists considered that conduct good which had tended to make the organism survive. This was a form of the survival of the fittest in conduct. Truth-speaking had driven out lying, for example, because it was better fitted to enable rhe organism of society to survive. This was altogether a wrong idea, because it did not explain the moral ideal itself. Ft was from the end of morally that they mm.i explain morality itself, not from its beginnings. The ’deal governing man's conduct was the good of humanity in terms of ihe uorfortion of man’s personality. Moral laws and constitutions were not i>: mutable, but they changed with com-cnt.ums of the ultimate moral good . • r 'ci t. Existing institutions wore guiding posts for future progress. The .Rvnmui arena with all its horrors was one of the most astonishing facts in the history of morality. But some shade of the. pa-t mJyj.i point to our wholesale use of poison in wr.r. Isolated facts proved nothing. The mere mention of there, would not or ore the inwaidnoss of the progress v. o had ! to examine. We muvt compare tho moral ideal of ancient and modern times. There had t cen an ay tom si bug chance. in Plato ar.d Aristotle there* was a definite account of what they •under*f. crj by the virtues. The modern conception was greatly extended in scope*, ridcaod and deepened. Aristotle’s idea of courage exemplified this. 1 he typical c ourage of Aristotle waa tho courige of the soldier in the bAttiefUdd. There was no mention of moral courage, which we regarded as the highest form of courage. Po/h idev.s e-irend at a noble end- in Aristotle tho maintenance of the Creek .state. Tho difference was in the of tho common good from tho mere body «>l Athenian nobles to the whole world. The rise of Christi.-.niby saw the ipaod of man regarded as the ideal. Courage j took forms very different from that which Arisfcctle regarded ay the highest The Athenian uobie would have mocked the idea, of being his brother’s keeper. The courage of the Christian mission-y--'v would have been regarded as a

form of madness. Professor Muirhead | mentioned R. L. Stevenson's moral outi look. He “ believed in the ultimate j decency of things, oven if I awoke in 1 hell.” No applause was given to | humility in the times of Aristotle. In ; regard to temperance, too. there was j seen a fundamental change. Though i both a-nciem and modern accounts bei lieved in temperance as n determinant :of character, they differed in all j other points. In ancient time, only , two senses were to bo restrained -tho j senses, of taste and touch. Pleasures | of sight and hearing were not regarded jas requiring restraint. The Greek j restraints on sox were on merely im- ; bridled passions-—a very inadequate conception in our point of view. A life of service among the heathen now was regarded as of the \highest moral value. Such a conception was far removed from that of Aristotle. Christian purity vrus a new virtue. There j was nothing approaching it in Aristotle. The virtue of benevolence— the active seeking of other people's good through love and sympathy— Was only approached in Aristotle in his treatment of justice and friendship. Justice had to do j duty for benevolence. Sympathy, or benevolence, had its beginning among the Stoics, but it was then passionless. Seneca upheld clemency as aginst pity which he regarded as a disease. Christianity awakened a now emotion in *he human heart. Every human soul was infinitely precious. The weak, the poor, the oppressed, were to be looked after. The history of civilisation from one aspect was the history of the extension of sympathy. Sympathy was a difficult virtue to attain. The Stoic disregard of pain prevented a full sympathy. When the ascetic element in Christianity gave way to sympathy Christianity thus gained much in influence. All the most marked forma of progress today were in the direction of sympathy. Humility found no place among the ancients. The “ magnanimous” man of Aristotle seemed in many respects a puerile conception. The Christian gentleman was humble. Truth speaking was not mentioned in our sense of the term in the ancient scheme of virtuo». The virtue of veracity was becoming more and more widely recognised. Bigotry and passion no longer eclipsed it so completely as of old. The garbled accounts of truth and the search after sensation which were features of a certain kind of modern journalism were depressing facts which showed that much progress had yet to come.