

Transcribed from the [1883?] Elliot Stock edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org





                            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_.

                                * * * * *




THE NEW DEPARTURE;
OR,
_THOUGHTS FOR LOYAL CHURCHMEN_.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 _via media_ or a _modus vivendi_, the
two parties between whom it must be a _via media_ 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.

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.”

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 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.

Three things may be briefly mentioned:

(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:

    “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.”

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.

(2.)  Then, again, the Use of Sarum was rich in complicated and senseless
ceremonial.  The Preface already quoted says of these ceremonies:

    “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.”

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 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.”

(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, {8} 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.

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.

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.

Now let anyone look for a moment at the line of argument, and the meaning
of this proposal is self-evident.

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.

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 A.D. 1545, which was followed in A.D. 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 A.D. 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 objected to by the <DW7>s 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.
{10}  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:—

    “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.”

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 which those who were to disposed might misinterpret in the
Romish sense.

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?

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 {11} 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.

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 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.

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.

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 A.D. 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.

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?

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 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.

                                                                 E. HOARE.

                      [Picture: Decorative graphic]




WORKS BY THE REV. CANON HOARE.


ROME, TURKEY, AND JERUSALEM.  17th Thousand.  16mo. cloth, 1s. 6d; paper
cover, 1s.

PALESTINE AND RUSSIA.  5th Thousand.  16mo. cloth, 1s. 6d; paper cover,
1s.

REDEMPTION.  A Companion Volume to _Sanctification_.  In square fcap.
8vo. 2s. 6d.

SANCTIFICATION.  Third edition.  In square fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.

DOCTRINE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, as taught by the Church of England.  Fcap.
8vo. sewed, 6d.

CONFORMITY TO THE WORLD.  New edition, revised.  16mo. cloth, 1s. 6d.;
paper cover, 1s.

INSPIRATION: ITS NATURE AND EXTENT.  New edition, revised.  16mo. cloth,
1s. 6d.; paper cover, 1s.

THE COMMUNION AND COMMUNICANT.  New cheap edition, revised and enlarged.
18mo. sewed, 3d.; or 2s. 6d.

                                * * * * *




_BY THE LATE MRS. E. HOARE_.


THE CHRISTIAN MOTHER; or, NOTES FOR MOTHERS’ MEETINGS.  2nd edition.  1s.

                                * * * * *




FOOTNOTES.


{8}  “History of the Church of England,” § 744.

{10}  There was a passage, for example, quoted in the _Guardian_ 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.

{11}  _Guardian_, Oct. 11.  I observe that the words “As regards the
Communion Office” have been added in the authorised report.




***