1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
|
<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" />
<title>The New Departure, by Edward Hoare</title>
<style type="text/css">
/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */
<!--
P { margin-top: .75em;
margin-bottom: .75em;
}
P.gutsumm { margin-left: 5%;}
P.poetry {margin-left: 3%; }
.GutSmall { font-size: 0.7em; }
H1, H2 {
text-align: center;
margin-top: 2em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}
H3, H4, H5 {
text-align: center;
margin-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: 1em;
}
BODY{margin-left: 10%;
margin-right: 10%;
}
table { border-collapse: collapse; }
table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;}
td { vertical-align: top; border: 1px solid black;}
td p { margin: 0.2em; }
.blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */
.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;}
.pagenum {position: absolute;
left: 92%;
font-size: small;
text-align: right;
font-weight: normal;
color: gray;
}
img { border: none; }
img.dc { float: left; width: 50px; height: 50px; }
p.gutindent { margin-left: 2em; }
div.gapspace { height: 0.8em; }
div.gapline { height: 0.8em; width: 100%; border-top: 1px solid;}
div.gapmediumline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%;
border-top: 1px solid; }
div.gapmediumdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%;
border-top: 1px solid; border-bottom: 1px solid;}
div.gapshortdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%;
margin-left: 40%; border-top: 1px solid;
border-bottom: 1px solid; }
div.gapdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 50%;
margin-left: 25%; border-top: 1px solid;
border-bottom: 1px solid;}
div.gapshortline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; margin-left:40%;
border-top: 1px solid; }
.citation {vertical-align: super;
font-size: .5em;
text-decoration: none;}
img.floatleft { float: left;
margin-right: 1em;
margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
img.floatright { float: right;
margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em;
margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
img.clearcenter {display: block;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0.5em;
margin-bottom: 0.5em}
-->
/* XML end ]]>*/
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 52420 ***</div>
<p>Transcribed from the [1883?] Elliot Stock edition by David
Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org</p>
<h1>THE NEW DEPARTURE;<br />
<span class="smcap">or</span>,<br />
Thoughts for Loyal Churchmen.</h1>
<div class="gapspace"> </div>
<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">BY
THE</span><br />
REV. E. HOARE,</p>
<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">VICAR OF
TRINITY, TUNBRIDGE WELLS, AND HONORARY CANON</span><br />
<span class="GutSmall">OF CANTERBURY.</span></p>
<div class="gapspace"> </div>
<p style="text-align: center">(<b>Reprinted from</b>
“<b>The Churchman</b>.”)</p>
<div class="gapspace"> </div>
<p style="text-align: center">LONDON:<br />
ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW.</p>
<p style="text-align: center"><i>Price One Penny</i>.</p>
<div class="gapspace"> </div>
<h2><a name="page3"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 3</span>THE NEW
DEPARTURE;<br />
<span class="GutSmall">OR,</span><br />
<span class="GutSmall"><i>THOUGHTS FOR LOYAL
CHURCHMEN</i></span><span class="GutSmall">.</span></h2>
<p><span class="smcap">It</span> is one of the difficulties of
perfect fairness in controversy that we are often unable to
ascertain with accuracy the real opinions of any considerable
bodies of men. This is especially the case when people are
not united as a corporate body, and therefore there is no
dogmatic or authoritative statement of their opinions. If,
for example, we are brought into discussion with those who term
themselves “The Brethren,” we may be perfectly
satisfied that we are giving a fair and faithful representation
of what we believe to be their teaching; but still we cannot
prove our statements by authority; for there are no authoritative
documents, and what one “brother” admits, another may
deny. It was, doubtless, this difficulty that led to the
peculiar language of the 31st Article. The Council of Trent
did not define the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice in the mass
until the year <span class="GutSmall">A.D.</span> 1562, and
consequently in <span class="GutSmall">A.D.</span> 1552, when the
Article was drawn up, the framers of it could not refer to any
authoritative document, but could only condemn what they knew to
be the current teaching of the Church of Rome. They
therefore used the expression, “<i>in which it was commonly
said</i>.”</p>
<p>There has been just the same difficulty with reference to that
remarkable movement which originated at Oxford about fifty years
ago, beginning with Tractarianism, and now developed into
Ritualism. It has all along professed to be an effort for
the revival of Church Principles, and as such has been heartily
supported by a considerable number of loyal and true-hearted
Churchmen. By “Church Principles” they have
understood the real principles of the Church of England; and, as
loyal Churchmen, they have welcomed the movement, believing it to
be an effort to recommend and develop those principles. In
this they have been encouraged by the use of the epithet
“High.” The Ritualistic party call themselves
“High Church,” <a name="page4"></a><span
class="pagenum">p. 4</span>and so do many of that large class of
Churchmen to whom I have just referred. The result is that,
although they have not altogether approved of some things which
they have read or seen, still, on the great, broad basis of High
Churchism they have considered that they have more affinity with
that movement than they have with those whom they designate
“Low.” They sincerely disapprove of many things
said and done by Ritualists, but they cannot quite get over the
fact that if Churchmen are to be classed as either High or Low,
they and the Ritualists, at all events, class themselves together
as High.</p>
<p>But many amongst us have for a long time been profoundly
convinced that the Church principles of the loyal, conscientious,
traditional High Churchman are totally different from the Church
principles of the Ritualist; and that the epithet
“High” means in the language of the two classes two
totally different things. In the one it means a faithful
adhesion to the Prayer Book and its principles; but in the other
a dissatisfaction with the Prayer Book, and a craving after
something beyond: in the one a rising to it, and in the other a
departure from it. To many amongst us this has been
perfectly plain for years. But still it has been impossible
to prove it, for there have been no authoritative documents; and,
even if there had been any they would not have been likely to
contain any such avowal. It has been seen perfectly clearly
in sermons, in pamphlets, in books, and in the ceremonial
imitation of Rome. But still, individual words and actions
could only be regarded as proofs of individual opinions, and
therefore, although they left no doubt on the minds of observers,
they could not be accepted as absolute proofs of disloyalty
against any of those who were not themselves guilty of disloyal
acts.</p>
<p>But a great change has now taken place, and we are brought
into altogether a new position. After the Church Congress
at Derby there can no longer be any doubt on the subject, for we
had there what was as nearly an authoritative statement as under
the circumstances it is possible to expect. It is needless
to speak of that well-known body, the English Church Union.
The E.C.U. was formed as a centre for the Ritualistic movement,
and it has ever since maintained its position as the most widely
extended and influential organization in existence for the
maintenance of Ritualistic principles.</p>
<p><a name="page5"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 5</span>I
believe, also, that it has been considered the most moderate of
the various kindred associations, so that it embraces several
who, as they express themselves, are not prepared to go to
extremes. Now, at the Derby Church Congress we had the
advantage of hearing a most important avowal from the President
of this influential organization. Of course, we who do not
belong to the Union have no means of knowing how far he spoke as
the mouthpiece of the Council, or simply gave expression to his
own personal opinion; but all must admit that when the President
of the Union, on such a great occasion, delivered a carefully
prepared written paper at the request of the Bishop of the
Diocese, we may regard that paper as approaching as nearly as
possible to an authoritative declaration of the principles and
purposes of the Union.</p>
<p>What, then, did the President of the English Church Union
say? What line did he pursue? The subject of
discussion was “Proposals for Liturgical
Improvement,” and Canon Venables accordingly made several
important practical suggestions which he thought might tend
without the slightest alteration of principle to increase the
interest of our Liturgical worship. But the President of
the English Church Union did nothing of the kind. He made
one proposal, and one only, namely, that those who wished to do
so should be at liberty to abandon our present Prayer Book
altogether, and adopt in its place the First Book of Edward
VI. His words were: “In discussing the question of
Liturgical Improvement, the proposal I have to make aims not so
much at any change in our existing Prayer Book, as at the
alternative use along with it of the First Prayer Book of Edward
VI.” Nor was this all, for almost immediately
afterwards he awowed his preference for the unreformed liturgies,
and the Use of Sarum, above our English Prayer Book. He
said, “Those who are at all acquainted with the unreformed
Service books of the English Church must often have wondered how
it came to pass that from a revision of originals so rich and
varied as the Sarum Breviary, and the great English rite of S.
Osmund, there should have resulted anything so meagre in
comparison with them as our existing daily Offices and
Liturgy.” There is no mistaking these plain and
outspoken words. There is the distinct avowal of a
preference for the unreformed Service books, while our own Prayer
Book is described as being so <a name="page6"></a><span
class="pagenum">p. 6</span>meagre in companion with them that it
is a wonder how it could have been derived from such rich and
varied sources. Nor is this an isolated sentence. In
another passage, he says, “In this respect it is impossible
to deny that our existing Communion Office is open to grave
exception.” The one object of the whole paper,
indeed, is to give such evidence of the inferiority of our
existing Liturgy as may induce the Bishops to give permission
(which, of course, they have no power to do) for the substitution
under certain circumstances of another book.</p>
<p>It is of no use, therefore, any longer to maintain the
delusion that the movements of the English Church Union are
prompted by any love for the English Prayer Book. That book
is condemned as “meagre,” and “open to grave
exceptions.” The preference is given to the
unreformed services, and especially to the Use of Sarum; and it
must be plainly understood that if anything is suggested as a
<i>via media</i> or a <i>modus vivendi</i>, the two parties
between whom it must be a <i>via media</i> are on the one hand
those who avow their preference for the Use of Sarum, and on the
other those who with their whole heart delight in the reformed
worship of our dear old Church of England.</p>
<p>But I have heard it said that the Use of Sarum was itself a
reformed service, and free from many of the abuses of Rome.
Thus Mr. Wood calls it “The great English rite of S.
Osmund.” But surely he was mistaken in that
expression, for, though used in England, it was not an English
rite. Osmund was a Norman Count, and having fought in the
army of William the Conqueror, was, as a reward for his services,
first created Earl of Dorset, and then appointed Bishop of
Salisbury. At the time of his appointment there was great
religious dissension in the country occasioned by the
introduction of the Gallican liturgy by William the Conqueror,
which was resisted by the English; and Osmund compiled the Use of
Sarum in order, if possible, to harmonize all parties. His
chief work, therefore, was to introduce, as far as possible, the
Gallican element; and in no sense whatever can that use be called
“The great English rite of S. Osmund.”</p>
<p>But its origin is of little importance as compared with its
contents. The great question is, “What is the real
character of the book which is thus preferred to our
‘meagre’ English <a name="page7"></a><span
class="pagenum">p. 7</span>Prayer Book?” And it would
be an important contribution to the present controversy if any of
those who exalt its excellence would inform us of any one
particular in which it differs in principle from the Romish
Missal and Breviary. There is not space in such a paper as
this for the investigation of its identity in all important
points with the liturgies of Rome; but it would be extremely
interesting to know in what that richness consists of which we
heard so high an encomium at the Derby Church Congress.</p>
<p>Three things may be briefly mentioned:</p>
<p>(1.) The Use of Sarum was certainly rich in Legends, and
that to the exclusion of Scripture. On such a subject we
surely cannot have a better authority than the preface to that
First Book of Edward VI., which is now so strongly
recommended. In that Preface it is said:</p>
<blockquote><p>“These many years past this godly and decent
order of the ancient fathers hath been so altered, broken, and
neglected by planting in uncertain stories, legends, responds,
verses, vain repetitions, commemorations, and synodals, that
commonly, when any book of the Bible was begun, before three or
four chapters are read out, all the rest were unread.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And of these Legends, etc., the same preface adds, “Some
be untrue, some uncertain, some vain and
superstitious.” If it is the omission of such Legends
as these that makes our Prayer Book “meagre,” all I
can say is, Let us thank God for its meagreness.</p>
<p>(2.) Then, again, the Use of Sarum was rich in
complicated and senseless ceremonial. The Preface already
quoted says of these ceremonies:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Some at the first were of godly intent and
purpose devised, and yet, at length, turned to vanity and
superstition; some . . . because they were winked at in the
beginning, they grew daily to more and more abuses, which, not
only for their unprofitableness, but also because they have much
blinded the people and obscured the glory of God, are worthy to
be cut away and clean rejected.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It may be well, perhaps, to give one illustration from the
Sarum Missal: “Here let the priest uncover the cup, and
make the sign of the cross with the host five times—first
beyond the cup on every side, secondly even with the cup, thirdly
within the cup, fourthly as the first, fifthly before the
cup.” This is given simply as a specimen, and some
may say that there is no harm in it. But I can scarcely
believe it possible that anyone will hesitate to apply to it the
language <a name="page8"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 8</span>of
the Preface, “This excessive multitude of ceremonies was so
great, and many of them so dark, that, they did more confound and
darken than declare and set forth Christ’s benefits unto
us.”</p>
<p>(3.) The Use of Sarum was rich in saint worship.
For example, in the Missal the priest did not confess to God
alone (I suppose that would have been meagre), but was directed
to say, “I confess to God, to blessed Mary, to all the
saints, and to you; because I have sinned too much by thought,
word, and deed by my fault: I pray holy Mary, all the saints of
God, and you to pray for me.” Again, in the Litany,
the Use of Sarum was far in excess of the modern Church of
Rome. In the modern Romish Litany I count only forty-seven
persons to whom prayer is addressed, including the Virgin, two
arch-angels, and the twelve apostles; but in the Use of Sarum
according to Bishop Short, <a name="citation8"></a><a
href="#footnote8" class="citation">[8]</a> there were no less
than 116 persons addressed. Possibly some Gallican saints
may have been added by S. Osmund. On that point I am not
prepared to speak; but of this I am certain, that in regard to
the worship of saints, all true English Churchmen will rejoice in
the meagreness of the Church of England Prayer Book, and have no
desire for the richness of the Use of Sarum.</p>
<p>Now this is the book which, before the assembled Church
Congress at Derby, was avowedly preferred to our English Prayer
Book. When, therefore, it is said that there is a clear
preference for the worship of Rome, no one can any longer regard
it as a calumnious or unfounded accusation. We have the
open, plain, and undisguised avowal of the President of the
English Church Union, that the English Prayer Book is
“meagre,” and the Use of Sarum rich; the English
Communion Office open to grave objections, and the unreformed
liturgies so superior, that it is a wonder how anything so
inferior as the English Prayer Book could have been compiled from
such rich materials. Let no one, therefore, from this day
forward, suppose that it is the object of the Union to uphold the
Reformed Church of England, or to maintain its worship; but let
it be clearly and distinctly understood, that the preference has
been publicly given to the Use of Sarum and the unreformed
liturgies.</p>
<p><a name="page9"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 9</span>But the
avowal of a preference, it may be said, is not a proposal; and if
we had nothing more than such an avowal, it might be supposed
that there was no intention of any practical action. Such a
supposition, however, is rendered impossible by the proposal
which followed, viz., that there should be the alternative use of
the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.</p>
<p>Now let anyone look for a moment at the line of argument, and
the meaning of this proposal is self-evident.</p>
<p>The argument is, that because the unreformed liturgies and the
Use of Sarum are superior to our English Prayer Book, therefore
we are to give the liberty to make use of the First Book instead
of our own. Is it not obvious that the whole force of the
argument depends on the fact that the First Book of Edward
approximates to these unreformed liturgies more nearly than does
our present book? It is preferred because it is more in
accordance with that which is considered the best, viz., the Use
of Sarum. This proposal, when regarded in connection with
the avowed preference, carries with it its own condemnation, and
ought at once to put all true Churchmen on their guard.</p>
<p>We are brought to exactly the same conclusion by the
historical position of the book. The Reformation was not a
sudden act, and our English Prayer Book was not born in a
day. The work began with the King’s Primer in <span
class="GutSmall">A.D.</span> 1545, which was followed in <span
class="GutSmall">A.D.</span> 1548 by the first Communion
Service—the chief object of which was the restoration of
the cup to the laity; but the first reformed Liturgy for morning
and evening worship was the First Book of Edward VI., in <span
class="GutSmall">A.D.</span> 1549. Now let no one
undervalue, for one moment, the greatness, or importance, of the
work which was accomplished in the publication of this
book. The compilers cleared away such a vast amount of
Romish superstition and error that it is impossible not to admire
the courage and wisdom with which they acted. They were
perfectly justified, therefore, in describing it as a godly book,
and in ascribing their success to the gracious help of the Holy
Spirit Himself; nevertheless, when the book was published it was
found that there were some parts in it which still required
alteration, and a revision became necessary. There were
certain things still left which required removal, so that when
any further change was <a name="page10"></a><span
class="pagenum">p. 10</span>objected to by the Papists it was
answered: “That it was no wonder that the corruptions which
they had been introducing for above a thousand years were not all
discovered and thrown out at once” (Bishop Burnet).
Besides which, there were certain expressions which it was just
possible to understand in the Romish sense. <a
name="citation10"></a><a href="#footnote10"
class="citation">[10]</a> It was clearly of the utmost
importance to avoid the possibility of any such doubt or
misapprehension; and as the Reformers had no desire that their
trumpet should give an uncertain sound, the book was carefully
revised. In the Act of Parliament which sanctioned the
revision the reason was given as follows:—</p>
<blockquote><p>“That there had been divers doubts raked
about the manner of the ministration of the Service, rather by
the curiosity of the ministers and mistakers than of any other
worthy cause; and that for the better explanation of that, and
for the greater perfection of the Service is some places where it
was fit to make the Prayer and fashion of Service more earnest,
and fit to stir Christian people to the true honouring of
Almighty God, therefore it had been by the command of the King
and Parliament perused, explained, and made more
perfect.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. was the result of that
revision; and, although it was subsequently both slightly altered
and added to in 1560 and 1604 till it reached its present form in
1662, we must regard that Second Book as the completion of the
great work of the Reformation so ably, but still imperfectly,
commenced in the First. The history, therefore, places the
First Book in exactly the same position as that in which it was
placed in the argument of Mr. Wood, viz., an intermediate
position between the Use of Sarum and the present English Prayer
Book. It was a great and noble effort but yet not
complete. It was a great movement in the right direction,
but there were still in it certain most serious defects; and what
was more important, it contained certain passages <a
name="page11"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 11</span>which those
who were to disposed might misinterpret in the Romish sense.</p>
<p>Yet this is the book to which we are now invited to return;
and it is only reasonable that we should ask the reason
why. We are content with our beloved old English Prayer
Book, in which, ever since we began to worship at all, we have
poured out our hearts in holy communion with God. Why
should we either forsake it, or throw the whole Church into
confusion by the admission of an alternative service?</p>
<p>Certainly not because the First Book is less
“meagre” than the second; for, beyond all
controversy, it was the more meagre of the two. Morning and
evening prayer began in it with the Lord’s Prayer, and
therefore contained neither texts, address, confession, nor
absolution. They also ended with the third Collect, and
therefore contained none of the prayers for the Queen, Royal
Family, &c. The “Prayers and Thanksgivings on
several occasions” were not included, so that the familiar
words of the “Prayer for all Conditions of Men,” as
well as the “General Thanksgiving,” were not in
it. The Commandments were not there; and the Catechism
contained nothing about the Sacraments. And what has become
of some importance since the subject has been mooted, there was
no Ordination Service. It is well to bear this in mind,
because it is the fashion with some persons to quote the 36th
Article as giving a sanction to the First Book. And Mr.
Wood said, in his address at Derby, that “at this very
moment it <a name="citation11"></a><a href="#footnote11"
class="citation">[11]</a> has the direct sanction and approval of
the 36th Article.” But he must have either forgotten
or ignored the fact that the ordinal to which the 36th Article
refers was published quite independently of the book, and was
never made a part of it. In 1552 the ordinal, with certain
changes, was introduced into the Second Book; but it was never
made a part of the First. The Article, therefore, has no
reference of any kind whatever to the First Book, and in that
book there was no Ordination Service.</p>
<p>It must be clear, therefore, to the most superficial observer,
that the attraction of the First Book does not consist in its
richness. If our own Prayer Book is “meagre,”
the First Book is much more so. The changes subsequently
made have <a name="page12"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
12</span>been chiefly in the direction of addition, and there
must be some other reason which renders it so attractive.
And what is that reason? There is an expression in §
743 of Bishop Short’s “History of the Church of
England,” which answers the question. The Bishop
there says: “On the whole, this book forms a connecting
link between the Missal and the Prayer Book.” Now, if
this be the case, it is no wonder if those who prefer the Missal
desire the substitution of this book for our present Prayer
Book. The time may not be come for the introduction of the
Missal itself; but that may follow in time, if they can now
secure the connecting link. If this be the case, the
reasons which lead men now to desire it are precisely those which
led the Reformers to reform it. It is nearer Rome than our
English Prayer Book. Therefore it was that the Reformers
reformed it, and therefore it is that they who prefer “the
unreformed liturgies” desire to return to it. This
may be seen very clearly in Mr. Wood’s address. He
enumerates several of the advantages that he considers would be
gained by a return to it, such is a closer conformity to the
order of “the canon” of the Mass; the omission of the
Ten Commandments, and the “Dearly Beloved;”
“the reservation for the sick;” “the unction of
the sick;” and prayer for the dead.</p>
<p>To these he might have added the restoration of an altar in
place of “the table” with its “fair white linen
cloth;” and of the name “The Mass” in addition
to the “Holy Communion;” the sanction for auricular
confession in the Communion Service, combined with the omission
of the General Confession in the Morning and Evening Prayer; the
omission from the words of administration of the clause,
“Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for
thee, and feed on Him in thine heart by faith with
thanksgiving” and the presence of certain other expressions
which it was just possible for “mistakers” to
understand as teaching the localization in the consecrated
elements of the actual human person of our blessed Redeemer now
seated at the right hand of God.</p>
<p>But there is one other result of a return to the First Book
which is of supreme importance, though I have not yet seen any
notice of it in the recent discussion, viz., that by returning to
the First Book we should get behind the date of the
Articles. The Articles were not drawn up till the year
<span class="GutSmall">A.D.</span> <a name="page13"></a><span
class="pagenum">p. 13</span>1552, so that by adopting the First
Book we should go back to a date at which the Articles did not
exist, at which, in fact, the Church of England had drawn up no
formal dogmatic protest against the errors of Rome. The
Reformation began with the reform of the Liturgy, before there
was any authoritative statement of distinctive truth, and when
the minds of men were passing through a rapid transition.
To this transition period the First Book belongs; and if we were
to decide on adopting the Liturgy of the transition there would
be a manifest inconsistency in combining with it those definite
statements of truth which were carefully drawn up afterwards when
the great gulf was past, and the work of the Reformation in
essential points complete.</p>
<p>With all these facts before us, it is impossible to mistake
the character of the proposal made. Whether we look at the
history or the contents of the book, we are brought to the same
conclusion. It is not a proposal to improve our Prayer Book
or to adapt it to the special demands of the day. It is a
proposal to depart from the Prayer Book altogether, and to return
to the transition state through which the Church of England
passed in the transition days of the Reformation. The First
Book of Edward bore just the same relationship to the Use of
Sarum that Basingstoke does to the city of Salisbury. The
Reformers halted awhile there on the up line, but they could not
rest, so they soon left it to complete their journey. We
are now invited to return there; but is there any thinking man
who can suppose for one moment that we are intended to remain
there, when we have the public avowal of the undenied preference
for “the unreformed liturgies” and the Use of
Sarum? Is it not perfectly clear that the attraction to the
First Book is simply this, that it is a station for the express
train on the direct down line to Sarum?</p>
<p>And now, how will this proposal be received? or rather, how
will it be received by that large body of men who wish to be
considered “High Churchmen,” and who mean by that
expression that they entertain a loyal, loving, and faithful
allegiance to the grand old Church of England, into which they
were received at their baptism, and of which those who are
clergymen have been its appointed officers ever since their
ordination? Will they, or will they not, be prepared for
this new departure? Are they prepared to abandon all the
historical <a name="page14"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
14</span>loyalty of their party; to give up their beloved Prayer
Book as “meagre” and “open to grave
objections;” to throw overboard their Articles and the
latter part of their Catechism; and to go boldly back to the
period of transition, when much, we fully admit, was improved,
but nothing defined; when great things were done, but when much
still remained to be done; and when nothing was matured or
consolidated as we now have it in our Articles and Liturgy?
If they are prepared for such a movement, it will certainly be a
new phase in the character of the historical, loyal, and
influential High Churchmanship of England.</p>
<p style="text-align: right">E. <span
class="smcap">Hoare</span>.</p>
<p style="text-align: center">
<a href="images/p14b.jpg">
<img alt=
"Decorative graphic"
title=
"Decorative graphic"
src="images/p14s.jpg" />
</a></p>
<h2><a name="page15"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 15</span>WORKS
BY THE REV. CANON HOARE.</h2>
<p>ROME, TURKEY, AND JERUSALEM. 17th Thousand. 16mo.
cloth, 1s. 6d; paper cover, 1s.</p>
<p>PALESTINE AND RUSSIA. 5th Thousand. 16mo. cloth,
1s. 6d; paper cover, 1s.</p>
<p>REDEMPTION. A Companion Volume to
<i>Sanctification</i>. In square fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.</p>
<p>SANCTIFICATION. Third edition. In square fcap.
8vo. 2s. 6d.</p>
<p>DOCTRINE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, as taught by the Church
of England. Fcap. 8vo. sewed, 6d.</p>
<p>CONFORMITY TO THE WORLD. New edition, revised.
16mo. cloth, 1s. 6d.; paper cover, 1s.</p>
<p>INSPIRATION: ITS NATURE AND EXTENT. New edition,
revised. 16mo. cloth, 1s. 6d.; paper cover, 1s.</p>
<p>THE COMMUNION AND COMMUNICANT. New cheap edition,
revised and enlarged. 18mo. sewed, 3d.; or 2s. 6d.</p>
<div class="gapshortline"> </div>
<h2><i>BY THE LATE MRS. E. HOARE</i>.</h2>
<p>THE CHRISTIAN MOTHER; or, NOTES FOR MOTHERS’
MEETINGS. 2nd edition. 1s.</p>
<div class="gapspace"> </div>
<h2>FOOTNOTES.</h2>
<p><a name="footnote8"></a><a href="#citation8"
class="footnote">[8]</a> “History of the Church of
England,” § 744.</p>
<p><a name="footnote10"></a><a href="#citation10"
class="footnote">[10]</a> There was a passage, for example,
quoted in the <i>Guardian</i> of December 6th, 1882, in which
Gardiner is reported to have said: “Willeth children to be
taught that they receive with their bodily mouth the body and
blood of Christ, which I allege, because it will appear it is a
teaching set forth among us of late, as hath been also and is by
the Book of Common Prayer, being the most true Catholic doctrine
of the substance of the sacrament in that is there so Catholicity
spoken of.” I do not say that Gardiner was right in
this statement, but I do say that if there was anything to
justify his assertion, it was most desirable that as soon as
possible it should be removed.</p>
<p><a name="footnote11"></a><a href="#citation11"
class="footnote">[11]</a> <i>Guardian</i>, Oct. 11. I
observe that the words “As regards the Communion
Office” have been added in the authorised report.</p>
<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 52420 ***</div>
</body>
</html>
|
