The New Departure; Or, Thoughts for Loyal Churchmen

BY THE REV. E. HOARE,
VICAR OF TRINITY, TUNBRIDGE WELLS, AND HONORARY CANON OF CANTERBURY.
( Reprinted from “ The Churchman .”)
LONDON: ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW.
Price One Penny .
It 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 A.D. 1562, and consequently in A.D. 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, “ in which it was commonly said .”
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,” 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.