ROMANISM AND RITUALISM. [TO Tits EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR.—Allow me to point out that in addition to those great religious qualities which, in your review of Mr. Plumptre's recent work, you signalise as the strength of Roman Catholicism, —to wit, devotion, realisation of the supernatural, and self- forgetfulness, in all of which Protestantism is markedly de- ficient, there are some other elements which are scarcely less powerful and attractive. First, I shall place the sense of solid- arity, contrasting with the disruptive individualism of its rival ; next—and though this looks like a paradox, it is bare fact—the incomparably greater flexibility of the system when applied to individuals who accord a general submission to authority. I mean, for instance, the way in which worshippers in church can employ each their own private and personal devotions, while collectively taking part in the public rites, a liberty unprovided for in the Church of England, and practically unobtainable under most of the sects. And thirdly, the special way in which this consideration for minds of different orders is exhibited by the co-existence and juxtaposition of great picturesqueness and splendour, appealing strongly to the imagination, with a simplicity as bare and rigid as Wahabeeism itself, and meeting the wants of abstracted and introspective minds. All these points need to be taken into account when esti- mating the power and allurement of the Roman system. De- spite its great sins, on its political and monarchical side, against the rights of conscience and the progress of society, and valu- able as is the critical and questioning influence of Protestantism as a guarantee for the maintenance of freedom, yet it does not seem to possess these properties even in germ, and therefore it must needs fail to meet the needs of a vast number, perhaps the majority, of minds. Now, Sir, what I am anxious to place before you and your readers is the statement that the whole scope, conception, and aim of the Oxford movement—call it, as you please, Tractaria.nism, Catholic Revival, or Ritualism—is just to revindicate for the Church of England these very elements of strength, freed from the Papalism which counter- acts their best forces.
1. As regards devotion. One very marked feature of the movement has been the revival of old and forgotten Anglican books of devotion, the adaptation of some of the best Roman books, such as Merlo Horst's " Paradisus Animm Christianw," and above all, the production of new ones in great variety, and almost countless numbers. Of books of this kind there are not even now more than one or two Evangelical specimens extant, and I do not know one which plainly bears the Broad-Church imprint. Again, I need not dwell on the notorious fact that
the most patent external outcome of the movement has been the development of the idea of worship in public religious assem- blies, of which ritual is a part, forced into exaggerated promin- ance for the moment, but sure to be reduced to its true dimensions in due time.
2. The assertion of supernaturalism, and notably in relation to the two chief Christian Sacraments—Baptism thirty years ago, the Eucharist now—is the head and front of Tractarian offending, in the eyes of their principal opponents. I cannot work out this idea without trespassing too much on your space.
3. The distinguishing and differentiating peculiarity of the Oxford movement of reform, contrasting with the Evangelical revival and with the Broad-Church philosophy, is that it alone has dealt with the English Church as an institution, and at- tempted corporate reforms, as distinguished from propagation of opinions. This sense of the Church's identity is bound up with the presentment of Christianity as a family ideal rather than as a merely personal one, that is, with solidarity.
4. Flexibility is aimed at by "Ritualists," so far as I know, more than by any other school, and their guilds, confraternities, bare and sternly simple mission services, united with great stateliness on other occasions, all make for freedom and variety. I am speaking from long practical experience, as respects the austere plainness of many " Ritualistic " services.
I am not at all denying that there have been many mistakes made, that ignorance, folly, and narrowness have often marred this ideal, but I contend that the movement mast in fairness be judged by its avowed aims and its practical results, especially by the latter, and that the experience of the last forty years is surely enough for our rulers in Church and State, enough, that is, to induce them to take a more intelligent and sympathetic view of a factor in the religious life of the day which they are powerless to eliminate.—I am, Sir, 8re.,
ILICHLRD F. LITTLEDSLE.
9 Red Lion Square, London, W.C., May 24th.
Previous page
