forms three main functions: it provides means of worship, it imparts religious teaching, and it interests itself in charitable work; and what it has to do, according to Canon Barnett, is simply, in each department of its activity, to plant itself at the modern standpoint so as to meet the needs of the men and women of today.
In the matter of worship this writer observes that "the words and forms remain the same as those which helped the people of three hundred years ago, although the fashions, the thought, and the whole organization of society have been changed." Cathedrals are little more than "the hunting ground of antiquarians and the practising places of choirs." The Church should "use the art and knowledge of the time as aids to worship." "It might," continues the writer, "by showing the wonders of science, open the eyes of the blind to see something of the height and breadth of the universe"; and the result would be that readier access would be found to men's minds for those sentiments of justice, charity, and mutual forbearance on which the peace and welfare of society must rest. Canon Barnett is quite right when, speaking of the social strugglers of to-day, he says that "conceit, pride in their own methods and aims, restless vanity, selfish anxiety are elements in the present confusion"; nor are we disposed to disagree with him when he says further that "the majority of people think much of themselves, because they are not conscious of One before whom they are as nothing, because, in a word, they do not worship." Here is where the true work of religion comes in, not in opposing the conclusions of science.
"Let science grow from more to more,"
as Tennyson has said,
"But more of reverence in us dwell."
The two are not incompatible, and Canon Barnett seems to feel strongly that it is through neglect of duty on the part of the Church, especially the duty of keeping in touch with the times, that reverence is not more active and influential among men than it is.
Turning to the subject of teaching, this writer is very outspoken. He says in effect that we must find the teaching required by the times in a study of the times. The following quotation will illustrate his meaning: "In the first century slavery was common, and was accepted without question both by Christ and by St. Paul. . . . These teachers, however (the antislavery leaders of the early part of the century), found the spirit behind the words—the Christ of the nineteenth century behind the Christ of the first century. In the name of a contemporary Christ they condemned slavery and convinced their hearers." The reverend gentleman does not observe, as he might have done, that those who appealed merely to the text of Scripture were among the strongest upholders of slavery. The reformers were more or less rationalizers, not pinning their faith to texts, but seeking a spirit and principle of life. The following remarks on religious teaching are much to the point: "Teachers have been too often stewards who bring out only the old things from the treasury, words spoken thousands of years ago, and acts fitted to another age. They go on using a phraseology which is not understood, preaching sermons about dead controversies, and condemning heresies long forgotten. They teach, but the people, tried and troubled by thoughts of duty to the rich or duty to the poor, find no help in their teaching. . . . Bishops might with advantage set candidates for orders to read modern books, and in examination test their powers to observe
