Page images
PDF
EPUB

criticism which has won for their countrymen such acknowledged triumphs in other directions. At the present moment there are four different translations of Shakespeare's plays appearing in Germany, the one issued under the auspices of this society being a new and revised edition of "The Classical Works of Schlegel and Tieck," with copious notes, and introductory essays. But besides its own direct labours, and the inquiries it stimulates and encourages in Germany, the Shakespeare Society takes careful note of every production of the foreign press that in any way bears upon the poet and his works. A long list is given at the end of the volume, in which all the articles in our periodical literature or that of America, all Shakespeariana, even of the slightest kind, that have appeared in the course of the last two years, are minutely catalogued. In short, the English lover of Shakespeare, desirous not only to increase his own critical and historical knowledge, but to trace the poet's influence over the mind of the present day, cannot do better than procure this volume. L.C.S. Die Modenarbeiten. Ein Spiegelbild der Zeiten und Sitten für das deutsche Volk. Von DR. RUDOLPH SCHULZE. Berlin: Nicolaische Verlagsbuchhandlung.

DR. SCHULZE, whose "History of Wines" has, it appears, met with a very favourable reception from German critics, is, he tells us, thereby encouraged to bring out another little work of the same popular kind, and now presents his countrymen and women with a history of the Follies of Fashion, not, indeed, "treated from the stand-point of philosophy or æsthetics," yet not wholly without instruction for the students of either, since, as the author truly observes, "fashion, spite of its acknowledged vanity, frivolity, and absurdity, has also its serious side, and may avail to illustrate not only the character of an individual, but also the intellectual and moral efforts of an era." There is nothing new in the little book, but it is an amusing compilation enough. Of course, we have in it the history of the now defunct hoop through all its vicissitudes, from the ancient Spanish Vertuguado to the modern crinoline; and, of course, Dr. Schulze lifts up his voice against the present abominations of chignon and paint; lamenting, as he well may, that the women of civilized and Christianized Europe should be once more reverting, in these particulars, to the customs of imperial Rome in its decline, and should show themselves so eager to adopt any vagary in costume devised by the caprice and prodigality of the least reputable class of modern society. L. C. S.

LAY WORK IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.-I have learnt, through the kindness of the Rev. D. R. Thomas, since the above article was written, a fact that practically meets the question which I was then compelled to leave unanswered, as to the date up to which (prior to its recent revival) the office of lay-reader had been exercised in the Church of England. It appears that such a reader was at work in the diocese of St. Asaph as late as A.D. 1769, when he died. He read the "Liturgy" (I do not know how much of our Sunday service is covered by this word) and a homily, in a small chapelof-ease in the township of Pentrevoelas. The last reader, Sion Dafydd, Berson (John Davies, Parson), was a clog-maker, and received £5 a-year for his services, that sum having been a charge upon the rectorial tithes from A.D. 1300, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the township. I may also add that the Bishop of Lincoln has followed the example of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol in the appointment of a lay-reader E. H. PLUMPTRE.

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

THE HE public is by this time familiar with these combinations of independent writers whose minds are known to symbolize on their main subject. There is no need, therefore, for us to explain the nature of this work. We may at once say that in the general tendency of their views on the Church questions of the day, the writers of these essays agree with the sentiments commonly found in our own pages. Their names will at once show that they are no unworthy or presumptuous intruders into the position of essayists on these subjects. When we mention Mr. Benjamin Shaw, Lord Arthur Hervey, Professor Payne Smith, the Rev. Alexander Grant, the editor himself, Canon Bernard, Mr. Arthur Mills, Professor Salmon, the Rev. W. G. Humphry, and Dean Howson, it will be evident that we may expect to find essays worth reading, and casting light on the several topics treated.

The title of the book may at first sight seem fanciful. But the perusal of Mr. Shaw's essay, which strikes the key-note of the whole, shows that it has been wisely and warily chosen; for these words, and nothing short of them, will describe the present state of things among us. It is no longer a question of party tolerating party; no longer a question of this or that interpretation of formulæ and rubrics: the whole foundation-principle of the Reformed Church of England is at stake. A powerful and closely organized conspiracy

[blocks in formation]

is now openly avowed to be working against the doctrines of the Reformation, and the liberty which we have won by their confession. The mask is no longer worn. We are told in the plainest terms that the object of the so-called Ritualistic party is to "bring us back to Rome:" and as clearly it is explained to us that the "Rome" meant is not the Rome of even Rome's better days, not the Rome of Gallican independence, "Rome, and room enough,"— but the tightly-bound Rome of ultra-montane ascendancy,—the Rome of the Bishop of Orleans and Archbishop Cullen : the worst form of the worst form of European Christianity.

No less than this is at stake: and the danger is coming nearer and nearer to us every day. Nor is the warning given by this publication unneeded. Not one sound Churchman in ten will believe in the danger at all. The High-Church party, the only party which can really grapple with the foe, imagine themselves (often simply because Low Churchmen tell them so) too much compromised to move in the matter;-or else they hold back because they are unwilling, by the overthrow of Ritualism, to furnish a triumph to their opponents. The Low Churchmen, by having perpetually cried "wolf" for half a century, have forfeited the right to be heard; and their journals and other utterances are simply disregarded. The advocates of free thought and opinion find in the audacious language of Ritualism an example of a tolerabilis ineptia, and feel that their principles do not justify them in contributing to stifle one voice among the din.

And meantime every year is witnessing greater and greater departure from the faith of our forefathers, and from the terms in which it was confessed. And this departure is brought about and evidenced by action the most subtle and insidious. Does an unusual word occur in some outlying portion of the Prayer-Book, or linger uncorrected in some corner of a homily? First, it is carefully obtruded as having the sanction of the Church: next, it is magnified and generalized; and soon it passes into the vocabulary of this unscrupulous party, and astonishes common observers, as would a bit of medieval costume in the midst of our modern fashions. Far and wide the poison is propagated. Assertions become more reckless and powerful from the very boldness of their falsehood; gestures and practices, about which it is impossible for a really serious mind to be serious, are more and more frequently seen; communications are sent to the journals, in apology for novelties adopted, or for correction of statements made, on reading which one really distrusts one's eyes, the mind refusing to conceive that the English truth-speaking conscience has been so far eaten out by this mischievous gangrene.*

One of these apologists the other day corrected a statement in the Times that incense was used during the Communion Service, by explaining that it was only used

I.

Mr. Shaw has done eminent service by pointing out for all readers the transparent fallacy, that we have no right to put down irregularity on the one side, as long as there exists irregularity on the other. He criticises, with all respect, the reply of the Bishop of Chester to the anti-Ritualistic memorial of 9,000 laymen in his diocese. They had stated their deep concern at "the introduction into many of the churches of the land of an elaborate Ritualism, Romish vestments, altar lights and incense, in avowed connection with doctrines which cannot be well distinguished from transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass."

The Bishop's answer, expressing a cautiously modified sympathy with the memorial, ends thus:—

"I am desirous as any of the memorialists can be, to maintain the doctrine of our Reformed Church, as set forth in the 28th and 31st Articles; and the prescribed form of worship, as plainly laid down in the PrayerBook. But this prescribed form of worship must be maintained in its integrity, if it is to be maintained in its purity. If one school of thought in one church could be induced to give up its extravagancies, and the other would be more hearty and exact in compliance with the directions of the rubric, all might alike offer the prayer that we might hold the faith in unity of spirit and in the bond of peace with a clearer conscience and a better hope of acceptance."

On this, Mr. Shaw makes the following remarks :—

"This last paragraph would convey, I think, to most minds, and therefore is, I presume, meant to convey, the impression that both parties are to a certain extent in pari delicto, and that the memorialists did not come with clean hands to complain of extravagancies,' if they sympathized with or tolerated a want of hearty and exact compliance with the rubric in members of their own school.

"Such words, coming from a learned prelate and theologian, deserve careful consideration.

"In the first place, there is some difficulty in seeing how the parties who presented the address could be responsible for the deviations from uniformity of any school of clergy, seeing that as laymen they had no part in the performance of public worship. It does not appear clear, therefore, how they could be liable to an argumentum ad hominem of this character, whatever might be its validity as addressed to clergymen.

"But, in the next place, it is submitted with great deference that the grievances set forth in the memorial were not complained of quà deviations from uniformity, or as what the bishop calls 'extravagancies.' What the memorial charges in substance is an attempt to restore doctrines and practices deliberately rejected by the Church at the Reformation;' and the 'extravagancies' in question are relied on as evidence of the animus of the parties against whom this complaint is brought. As mere departures from before and after. As if both procemium and peroration were not, and would not be by themselves, in other audience, avowed to be parts of the Service! We are glad to find that, since this was written, the Times (Oct. 16, 1868) has exposed this flagrant dishonesty.

rubrical exactness apart from their significance on the question of intention, there is nothing to show that the memorialits would have felt so strongly about them. Hence it is not easy to see the justice of drawing a parallel between the case disclosed by the address, and any shortcomings in rubrical exactness merely as such.

"The bishop, in framing the paragraph under consideration, was no doubt moved by a desire to act, and was probably under the impression that he was acting in a spirit of equitable impartiality. But it may be allowable to express a doubt whether the requirements of such a spirit were altogether what his lordship seems to have supposed. For impartiality, even in its judicial sense-the impartiality of a court of law compelled to come to some decision on every one of the matters brought before it-does not consist in treating all offences as equal, but in duly estimating the importance of each on its proper grounds. And if this be so even with a judge, it is still more the case when, as here, the question is not so much judicial as administrative. For the appeal was made to the bishop as a governor exercising the executive power of the Church; and the real point was, whether the cases of the two schools of theology were so nearly on a par that no valid distinction could be drawn between them, and that no steps could fairly be taken on one side without a necessity to take them also on the other.

"Now, in this point of view, it is submitted that it is not usually considered indispensable, for the sake of impartiality, that a government should decline to interfere in a pressing case because some minor evil happens not to have been effectually redressed. Thus, to take rather a strong instance, the authorities did not think it incumbent on them to inquire whether due punishment had been awarded to all street boys who had let off squibs on the 5th of November before they determined to prosecute the parties who fired the barrel at Clerkenwell.

"So, again, the Attorney-General does not ask whether every hot-headed speaker has been strictly called to account before he takes proceedings for sedition or treason-felony against men who deliberately conspire to preach disaffection.

"Even where offences are committed against the same statute, they are not necessarily of equal importance. What would be thought of commissioners of police or magistrates if they declined to enforce the Metropolitan Police Act against persons provoking a breach of the peace, or driving furiously to the danger of life, or being intoxicated and riotous, on the ground that the complainant happened to be guilty of having his door-mat shaken after the hour of eight in the morning, or did not sufficiently cleanse the footway before his house?

"These are extreme cases, no doubt, and I deprecate the supposition that I mean to compare Ritualists, or their opponents, to these respective classes of offenders. But it is by extreme cases that the soundness of a principle is tested, and I am only using a logical right in so testing the principle before us.

"Let it then be carefully noted that the question is, not whether any departure from the rubric is to be advocated and justified-a position of a wholly different kind-but whether, looking on the subject dispassionately and in a judicial temper, there is really any fair comparison to be drawn between the proceedings of Ritualists and the irregularities attributed to their opponents. Because, if not, a rigorous enforcement of the law against every small variation from it might possibly be to fall into that very bondage to the letter-that very system of inelastic uniformity-which, as stated at the commencement of this paper, is peculiarly distasteful to the spirit of our times. To enforce a stern code as the only means of dealing

« PreviousContinue »