DR. PUSEY ON RITUALISM.
DR. PUSEY holds a very peculiar view about ritualism. He thinks the demand for ritualism has had its origin with the laity, and has been forced by the laity on the clergy. That there do exist ritualists among the laymen, and still more of them among the laywomen, all of us who have ever been present at a ritualist service know. But we should be very much surprised to hear of a single case in which a majority of the churchmen attending any church, not previously ritualistic, have pressed upon the clergyman to wear any of the strange garments characteristic of the ritualist movement, or to use incense, or to stand with his back to the congregation in the prayer of consecration, or to lead pro- cessions through the church with flying banners, or, in short, to follow any one of the mild devices for attracting the attention of children, and finding vent for the enthusiasm of women, characteristic of the ritualist movement. Every one knows plenty of churches in which a majority of churchmen have been annoyed and repelled, and sometimes alienated, by these practices, when thrust upon them by the officiating priests, but we sincerely doubt if there be a church in the kingdom with a con- gregation of thirty or forty families where the ritualistic move- ment was supported by the laity. Of course, we except the cases of such churches as St. Alban's, Holborn, and others like it, in great towns, where the ritualistic service has first thrown off those who dislike ritualism and then attracted those who like it, till it is no more a congregation of local residents, but one of all varieties of widely scattered ritualists. But with the exception of such cases, we honestly doubt whether ritualism is ever more than tolerated in any congregation large enough to be in any sense representative, while in a very large number of churches indeed it is certainly not tolerated at all, since it alienates the resi- dents and sends them away from the Church. Dr. Pusey's state- ment, therefore, strikes us with pure amazement. We have never met with even an atom of experience that looks like evidence in its favour. Ritualism in the Anglican Church has always seemed to us to be entirely and exclusively of sacerdotal origin, and to find whatever popularity it has, among these " pious women not a few" who reflect the influence of the priestly caste. But if Dr. Pusey is right, if ritualism be really of popular origin, and has been forced on the Anglican priests by the Anglican laity, we must claim Dr. Pusey's vote, not indeed for the new plan proposed by the Bishops for enforcing the decisions of ecclesiastical law,—which he might fairly say would be made the instrument of enforcing in one parish customs decided upon by a majority of representatives in other parishes,—but for a more radical proposal still, which would give the laity of any separate parish the power of putting a veto on any change in the mode of conducting worship which the clergy- man might propose, and indeed provide the clergyman with a lay council of advice for all the disputed questions of his parochial ad- ministration. It is clear that while such a plan would gravely injure the prospects of ritualism, in case we are right in supposing that the movement is of purely sacerdotal origin, and has found favour, as a rule, only with enthusiastic women, it would greatly improve those prospects, if Dr. Pusey is right in supposing, as he tells the 2 inzes, that the so-called ritualistic movement "has come mainly from the people, not from the clergy." We have always thought it the only formidable objection to the scheme of a parochial council that it was understood that it would cause the emigration of the Puseyite clergymen in a body from the Church ; and nobody really wants to alienate a great number of somewhat irrational, but earnest men, so long as they can act in something like harmony with their people. Now Dr. Pusey's avowal of his belief that ritualism has been mainly forced on the clergy by the laity, gives us a glimmer of hope that he would not object to a measure which would leave the ceremonial of parish churches a good deal in the hands of a parochial council elected by laymen. Of course it is oue thing to give a diocesan council a right to interfere with the order of worship in indi- vidual parishes, and quite another to arm the separate parishes with such a right for themselves. The one proposal places in the hands of a majority of the laity (and clergy) of a diocese the right to determine where the ecclesiastical law should be put in force, and where it should not. The other proposal places in the hands of the people themselves the right to determine what, on certain minor points of ritual and observance, the rule ought to be. It is obvious that with Dr. Pusey's views as to the origin of the ritualistic movement, the last proposal might seem much less objectionable than the former, and certainly, with our own view as to its origin, we should be even better satisfied with it than with the scheme of the Bishops. On minor points of religious observance, we see no reason in leaving the determination of the fair limits of variety in the power of a majority of the laity and clergy of a diocese, for on such points it seems to us that the local feeling is entitled to great respect, whereas the local feeling may differ in almost every parish in the diocese. On larger points, such as the determination of the allowable limits of creed, of the general liturgical forms, and again, of moral and spiritual usage in relation to matters of great importance, like Confession for instance, we hold that the law of the Church should be clearly laid down by the law of the laud, and that the clergy who will not obey it should be summarily punished by suspension or deprivation, and this not at the discretion of a diocesan council, but by requiring the public prosecutor, directly we have one, to put the law in force.
It has several times been hinted to the Tory Government, and we think truly, that they have an opening for introducing an ecclesiastical reform such as would be in the truest sense Conservative as well as Liberal. We cannot help hoping that they may see this, and really strengthen the national Church by pro- posing some such ecclesiastical reform. And if Dr. Pusey's letter be any index of what his friends think of these matters, surely it suggests a line on which a considerable number of different parties in the Church might be persuaded to agree. Dr. Pusey says that the recent decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may possibly be "acquiesced in" by his friends, supposing those decisions to be confirmed by like decisions from the new Court of Appeal. And he further says that if he and his friends should prove to be mistaken in thinking " that certain usages are in con- formity to the English formularies, we should, I suppose, find other ways of expressing a devotion to our Lord dearer to us than life." Now, no one, as far as we know, ever wanted to curtail any clergyman's privilege of " expressing a
devotion to our Lord dearer than life." All the laity so strongly object to is the choice of particular modes of doing so, which seem to them to identify themselves with particular superstitions, like belief in a miracle worked upon the substance of the sacra- mental bread and wine, and other analogous theological hypotheses. If, then, the Puseyites will accept as authoritative the determina- tion of competent lawyers that particular practices are not autho- rised by the usages of the English Church, and on minor matters will accept the test of an appeal to popular feeling as to whether particular modes of celebrating public worship alienate or attract worshippers, we do not see why some sort of solution of the exist- ing difficulties could not be arrived at. And it might well be one which would lead to a good deal of more important organisation in future. For once let the practice of associating the laymen with the clergyman of a pariah, for the purpose of deciding on the conduct of public worship, be established, and we shall have the basis of an organisation which may well go much further, and lead to a Convocation really representative of the Church, and not the ridiculous travestie on a representative body which the present Houses of Convocation of Can- terbury and York certainly are. We have no guess as to the origin of Dr. Pusey's dream that ritualism is essentially of lay origin. But we cannot help thinking it a very fortunate thing that he and some of his friends should give credit to that opinion. Surely if they are prepared to " acquiesce " in the decisions of the highest Court, when deliberately reaffirmed, on the more important questions of ritual, they will not object to let leas important matters depend on the wish of the laity, by whom, as they con- sider, the ritualistic changes have been chiefly introduced. Dr. Pusey oan hardly refuse such a concession, without seeming dis- loyal to his professed faith in the laity as having in so many places pressed the High-Church changes on the clergy. He can hardly say that he will not trust the very originators of what he deems so great a reform. The Liberals, on the other band, would be very glad to accept the local laity as their Court of Appeal on all minor matters. And if by so doing we gave an impulse instead of a great check to ritualism, of course we should be astonished, but of course, too, we should be prepared to maintain that in a country which is more and more governed by majorities of the people, there is ho alternative but to submit. Will, then, the Puseyites really stand by their view that the new Anglicanism is of lay origin ?
Previous page
