Transcribed from the [1883?] Elliot Stock edition by DavidPrice,
BYTHE
REV. E. HOARE,
VICAR OFTRINITY, 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 ofperfect fairness in controversy that we are often unable toascertain with accuracy the real opinions of any considerablebodies of men. This is especially the case when people arenot united as a corporate body, and therefore there is nodogmatic or authoritative statement of their opinions. If,for example, we are brought into discussion with those who termthemselves “The Brethren,” we may be perfectlysatisfied that we are giving a fair and faithful representationof what we believe to be their teaching; but still we cannotprove our statements by authority; for there are no authoritativedocuments, and what one “brother” admits, another maydeny. It was, doubtless, this difficulty that led to thepeculiar language of the 31st Article. The Council of Trentdid not define the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice in the massuntil the year A.D. 1562, andconsequently in A.D. 1552, when theArticle was drawn up, the framers of it could not refer to anyauthoritative document, but could only condemn what they knew tobe the current teaching of the Church of Rome. Theytherefore used the expression, “in which it was commonlysaid.”
There has been just the same difficulty with reference to thatremarkable movement which originated at Oxford about fifty yearsago, beginning with Tractarianism, and now developed intoRitualism. It has all along professed to be an effort forthe revival of Church Principles, and as such has been heartilysupported by a considerable number of loyal and true-heartedChurchmen. By “Church Principles” they haveunderstood the real principles of the Church of England; and, asloyal Churchmen, they have welcomed the movement, believing it tobe an effort to recommend and develop those principles. Inthis they have been encouraged by the use of the epithet“High.” The Ritualistic party call themselves“High Church,” p. 4and so do many of that large class ofChurchmen to whom I have just referred. The result is that,although they have not altogether approved of some things whichthey have read or seen, still, on the great, broad basis of HighChurchism they have considered that they have more affinity withthat movement than they have with those whom they designate“Low.” They sincerely disapprove of many thingssaid and done by Ritualists, but they cannot quite get over thefact that if Churchmen are to be classed as either High or Low,they and the Ritualists, at all events, class themselves togetheras High.
But many amongst us have for a long time been profoundlyconvinced that the Church principles of the loyal, conscientious,traditional High Churchman are totally different from the Churchprinciples of the Ritualist; and that the epithet“High” mean