MR. GLADSTONE AND THE RITUALISTS.
and, whichever way it went, his advice more influential, think it impossible to make the attempt. And it is the at-
Mr. Gladstone's counsels are perfectly definite and very much tempt, not the success, which is producing such wide-spread in earnest, on two points in relation to which they would have a uneasiness and excitement. He has also pointed out that very restraining influence on Ritualism. First, he condemns many of the rituals which seem to us to be appropriate to the the Ritualists severely whenever they let their love of ritual creed of Rome, and to the creed of Rome alone, are really startle and repel their congregations,—or, as we conceive, even used in thoroughly Protestant Churches, like the Lutheran, a small proportion of their congregations. Next he condemns the Danish, and Swedish Churches, without any of the signi- them severely whenever they let their love of outward symbol ficance which the Roman use attaches to them. But it is not, run beyond the limits of the devotional feeling which the of course, true that when a Ritual has come to mean one thing symbol is intended to express. On both these points his view in a natural, historical way in one land, and a different thing is very clearly and strongly put. Three of his six interroga- in the same way in another land, either country can at pleasure tire tests tell on the first point. He says that a clergyman adopt it under the interpretation put upon it by the other country. should ask himself, in relation to any proposed change, "Will That which is perfectly innocent of a Romanising tendency in it increase or will it limit the active participation of the flock a Lutheran or Danish Church, will have such a sense, if and- in the service ?" "Is it agreeable to the desires of this par- denly adopted by the Anglican Church. Mr. Gladstone should ticular congregation ?" "Is it adapted to their religious and give us another essay, on the historical genius of the National their mental condition, and likely to bring them nearer to God Church, and on what ritual that genius fairly admits, and what in the act of worship, or to keep them further from Him ; to it utterly repels. To our minds, it is undeniable that our attract or disperse their thoughts ; tà warm or freeze their Church represents a powerful reaction in the direction of so- affections?" Now, of course, no one of these three questions briety, simplicity, and indeterminateness of view, from the could be answered in a way favourable to a ritualistic change, lavish pageantry, the multiform and apparently inconsistent wherever that change would startle and repel even a small devotional types and orders, and the sharply-defined dogmatic proportion of the worshippers ; indeed, any such change as definiteness of the Church of Rome. If our ritual is to admit that is condemned, and gravely condemned, by Mr. Glad- of a devotional externalism as sensuous, of a range of moods stone. Again, Mr. Gladstone condemns seriously any attempt as motley, and of a dogmatic sharpness as cold and free to employ ritual as a "substitute for," or even as "a produce- from mystery, as that of the elder and more cosmopolitan rug cause of," religious feeling. To be useful, ritual should, Church, the English Reformation was a mistake, and its he says, be wholly the expression of devotional feeling, not attempt to regain the purity, simplicity, and mystery of the either an equivalent for it, or the means of stimulating it. In Primitive Church was a conspicuous failure. We are quite fact, Mr. Gladstone not only condemns the view of ritual sure that Mr. Gladstone does not think that this was so, and which makes it something efficient in itself,—something which that he could point out, if he would, the directions in which is more or less independent of the heart of the worshipper,— the deviation from the ordinary type of English worship is un- but he condemns that view of it which treats it as natural and inadmissible within the borders of the Estab- didactic, as stimulating devotion, and as likely to mould lishment. Ritual is a language of hieroglyphic, in which the mind of the worshipper into sympathy with its it is possible to convey by forms, colours, and gestures symbolic meaning. He takes the strictly Protestant view what it is unlawful to say by the direct language of that ritual should simply express what is already in the hearts prayers and creeds. This,—with the fact that it seems to of the people,—and we take him to imply, at all events, that commit the worshippers no less than the clergymen who ti// the devotion is in the heart of the people, ritual will tend speak in their name,—is what constitutes its power and danger. rather to harden than to touch the religious nature of the specta- Mr. Gladstone deals so impartially with the subject of ritual, tors. "I view with mistrust and jealousy," says Mr. Gladstone, that his moral authority would be very great, if he were to tell "all tendency, wherever shown, either to employ ritual as the the Clergy of this country what ritual seems to him fairly at substitute, or to treat ritual as the producing cause "—of the home in the Anglican Church, and what is wholly foreign and religious life. Mr. Gladstone, therefore, not only condemns alien to it. His essay needs this supplement to make it corn- those who offend or startle their congregations with new ritual, plete, nor would such a discussion be open to the objection but those who rely on the ceremonial, as itself beneficial, and of broaching a legislative alternative to the measure already those who hope that the ceremonial will take the place of a enacted by Parliament. Indeed, the frank declaration of Mr. personal appeal, and stir up devotional feeling where before it Gladstone's view, and of the reasons for it, might do much was not. In other words, while he approves a purely expressive to diminish the opportunities for future ecclesiastical litiga- ritual, if sanctioned by custom,—i.e., the natural ritual which tion. The moderate Ritualists, at all events, will listen to the heart imposes on the body,—he condemns both controversial counsel from Mr. Gladstone, when they would listen to no one ritual which attacks the tastes ind feelings of the people and else. He has shown with complete impartiality how their line also the pantomimic ritual of didactic gestures, devised to of action may be most unfortunately misunderstood, and how
strike the eye first, and to address the heart only through the eye. He would not approve the attempt either to convince or persuade by means of ritual. Ritual, to Mr. Gladstone, is purely expressive, so far as it is good at all.
That is excellent Protestantism, and most important, so far as it goes ; but Mr. Gladstone's moral influence with Church- men is very justly so great, that we do not think he should stop there. He should also tell us, we think, what sort of ritual is, in his opinion, consistent, and what is not consistent with his fourth test,—namely, " Is it conformable to the spirit of the Prayer-Book ?"—for without telling us this, he has not helped anyone to say what ritual is alien to the National Church, /THERE can be no misunderstanding of the profound interest though it might be perfectly appropriate in other Churches 1 taken by the public in Mr. Gladstone's essay on Ritualism. holding other creeds. We can quite conceive that a particu- The number of the Contemporary in which it appeared had lar ritual might be neither controversial,—because quite in already reached, three days ago, a sixth edition, and yet the keeping with the feelings of the congregation using it,—nor essay has been reproduced and extensively circulated by the daily pantomimic, because intended simply as a mode of expressing, papers. The truth is that not only are politicians of every school and not of propagating, devotional feeling,—and yet might be eager to study the exact attitude assumed by Mr. Gladstone in the highest sense unsuited to the religious tone of the towards Ritualism, but the courage and independence of purpose Anglican liturgies and formula3. In other words, it might be shown by his speech on the" Public Worship Regulation Bill" out of place ecclesiastically, though not socially or morally. have given him something of the position of an arbiter amongst It might be quite fitting for a congregation to use a particular Churchmen themselves, who read his essay with a sincere respect ritual, if it had left the Anglican Church, and were for his personal opinion as to the limits within which the Ritual- in communion with some other, such as the Swedenborgian, the ists are to be excused or condemned. It is, then, we think, Irvingite, or the Roman Church, which ritual it would not be quite worth while to return to the subject once more, for the appropriate, or even defensible, to use as a commentary on the sake of pointing out clearly both how much Mr. Gladstone has Thirty-nine Articles, or in connection with the rubrics of the distinctly said,—which, if his counsel were adopted, would tend Communion Service. Mr. Gladstone has told us that he to restrain Ritualism,—and how much still remains to be said thinks it impossible to Romanise England, more especially on the subject, of a kind which would make his meaning clearer since the decree of the Vatican Council. But he can hardly
and, whichever way it went, his advice more influential, think it impossible to make the attempt. And it is the at- difficult it is to catch the true interpretation to be put upon any given ceremonial. Hence it seems to us that he might powerfully promote peace by a candid exposition of his views on the admissible or the inadmissible character of the various rites now so often grafted by English clergymen on the services -of the Anglican Church.
Previous page
