Punch: Punch (69.1875)

October 30, B75.J PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. 173

PROUD OF HIS CLOTH!

S the punishment most appropriate
to the offenoe, H.R.H. the Field-
Marshal Commanding in Chief,
has sentenced an unruly Subal-
tern, who has disgraced Her
Majesty's Service — by taking
part, first, in some silly practical
joking at Hythe, and, as a sequel,
in some ungentlemanlike, and,
worse, unfair fisticuffs on a public
promenade—to appear for the space
of a year constantly in. uniform. Until
now the Queen's coat has been considered
an honour to its wearer, not a disgrace.
However, " we have changed all that," and
may soon expect to ?ee the publication of the
following sentences :—

The Colonial Bishop of Niggerstown, having
insisted upon lighting sixteen candles during
Morning Celebration," has been ordered to
wear his lawn sleeves at all croquet parties to
which he may be invited during the next six
calendar months!

Mr. Christopher Sharp, Barrister-at-Law,
having addressed the Lord Chief Justice
with unbecoming levity, has been ordered to wear his wig and gown at Covent Garden
during the Opera season of 1876.

Major-General Sir Hercules Hannibal, K.C.B., D.C.L., having spoken with dis-
respect of the Honorary Degree conferred upon him by the University of Oxbridge, has been
ordered to wear his Doctor's gown in Rotten Row every day for a twelvemonth.

And, lastly, H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge, having made a serious mistake, is hereby
desired by Mr. Punch not to presume to put on a red coat or a cocked hat until he has
learned to appreciate the uniform of his Sovereign at its proper value.

A VICATt ON YANITIES.

{Some words with the Rev. A. Williams, Vicar of Kingston, concerning his Views with
regard to "Dramatic Performances'''' and "Entertainments for the People." See
Daily Telegraph, Oct. 20.)

Reverend Sir,—Mr. Punch has a profound respect for honest convictions temperately
expressed, however antagonistic they may be to his own opinion. But as it is in the nature
of pulpit Philippics, especially when directed against what are clerically known as " Worldly
Vanities," to be just a little one-sided, he would like to put to you a few questions with
regard to your recently reported Sermon.

In the first place, what are " Worldly Vanities ;" and are there no Vanities which may be
called "other-worldly"? It is not, perhaps, every Stall in Vanity Fair whose badge is
motley, and whose sign is the Cap and Bells. Are there not booths there, sombrely enough
draped, yet where are vended, at a good prioe too, such indisputable " Vanities" as spiritual
pride, professional bias, purblind dogmatism, and unoharitable construction? "All is
Vanity,' said the Preacher of old. But modern pulpiteers are apt to be somewhat arbitrarily
eclectic, and to brand as Vanities the things only which they individually or professionally
dislike. It is well to hold the balance fairly—even in Vanity Fair !

Again you endeavour to give show of logical process to what you please to consider your

argument," by declaring that "amusements of this description" are demonstrably

wrong, because Scripture pointedly con-
demns " foolish talking and. jesting." But
is the sequitur so clear as might be wished ?
Might not the text, with equal show of
logic, be _ twisted into a condemnation of
the pulpit, seeing that from that quarter
we have such a superabundance of "foolish
talking"? Or is stultiloquence more
tolerable from the lips of a preacher than
from the mouth of a mime ?

You do not seem to take the intelligible,
though disputable, position, that in the
divine economy of things there is no legiti-
mate function for mirth or for amusement.
It is clear then, that it remains to decide
what is permissible amusement and allow-
able mirth. The inquiry demands discrimi-
nation and candour, things not much in
favour with such sweeping anathematisers
as yourself. But "the Cloth" is fond of
the argument analogical. Shall we say
then that because so many Sermons are
dull, idealess, unprofitable, not to say,
"deteriorating," it would, therefore, be
well to abolish the pulpit altogether ?

You say that 1' the whole spirit of such
things is as worldly and unscriptural as it
can possibly be." Worldly? Unscriptural?
Vague words, Reverend Sir, which may
mean anything or nothing. Is all that is
not distinctively spiritual to be condemned
as worldly, in an evil sense ? Is all that is
not specifically enjoined by Scripture to be
branded as unscriptural or anti-scriptural ?
Is Hamlet "worldly"? Is the Midsummer
Night's Dream "unscriptural"? Or are
they, like a large proportion of legitimate
human works and ways, innocently extra-
scriptural, but no more antagonistic to the
Spirit of the Book we all reverence than a
lily or a laugh ? Your Philippic, though
intended to be pungent, seems to lack point
and particularity. There are numberless
details of the daily duties of humanity,
concerning which Scripture gives no specific
judgment or direction; otherwise you would
hardly, in your indiscriminating condemna-
tion of the Stage, be compelled to fall back
upon doubtful metaphors and distorted texts.

Does it not strike you that the role of
" Spiritual Watchman," which you so
readily assume, demands, for its proper
discharge, some judicial faculty and fair-
ness, some knowledge of human life, its
needs and its possibilities ? Do the spiritual
policemen who would imprison a child for
picking a flower, or anathematise an adult
for entering a theatre, exhibit that fairness,
or that knowledge—to say nothing of such
minor Christian attributes as mercy or
charity? "The broader the farce, the
more it pleases," say you. But about
sundry ecclesiastical performances of late,
has there not been all of the farce but the
fun ? Would it not be well to banish bur-
lesque from the pulpit before falling foul of
it on the stage? Finally, doffing "the
seven-league boots of self-opinion," would
it not be wise to direct the lively battery
of clerical energy against the proven evils
which beset all human institutions, ecclesi-
astical ones not excepted, rather than
sweepingly to condemn dramatic perform-
ances and popular entertainments (as one
might as fairly denounce the multitude of
"pulpit ministration" in which you
rejoice) by the aid of illogical appeals to the
misread letter or misrepresented spirit of
Holy Scripture ? I pause for a reply ; and
holding my lay rostrum of at least equal
dignity with a misused pulpit, do not think
it necessary to apologise for thus catechis-
ing a Catechist before I subscribe myself
Your very obedient Servant,