{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52420/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52420","id":"gutenberg_52420","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52420","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - British","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of England -- Customs and practices","Ritualism"],"text":"Transcribed from the [1883?] Elliot Stock edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n\n\n\n\n                            THE NEW DEPARTURE;\n                                   OR,\n                      Thoughts for Loyal Churchmen.\n\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                  BY THE\n                              REV. E. HOARE,\n\n          VICAR OF TRINITY, TUNBRIDGE WELLS, AND HONORARY CANON\n                              OF CANTERBURY.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                    (Reprinted from \u201cThe Churchman.\u201d)\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON:\n                    ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n\n                            _Price One Penny_.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nTHE NEW DEPARTURE;\nOR,\n_THOUGHTS FOR LOYAL CHURCHMEN_.\n\n\nIT is one of the difficulties of perfect fairness in controversy that we\nare often unable to ascertain with accuracy the real opinions of any\nconsiderable bodies of men.  This is especially the case when people are\nnot united as a corporate body, and therefore there is no dogmatic or\nauthoritative statement of their opinions.  If, for example, we are\nbrought into discussion with those who term themselves \u201cThe Brethren,\u201d we\nmay be perfectly satisfied that we are giving a fair and faithful\nrepresentation of what we believe to be their teaching; but still we\ncannot prove our statements by authority; for there are no authoritative\ndocuments, and what one \u201cbrother\u201d admits, another may deny.  It was,\ndoubtless, this difficulty that led to the peculiar language of the 31st\nArticle.  The Council of Trent did not define the doctrine of\npropitiatory sacrifice in the mass until the year A.D. 1562, and\nconsequently in A.D. 1552, when the Article was drawn up, the framers of\nit could not refer to any authoritative document, but could only condemn\nwhat they knew to be the current teaching of the Church of Rome.  They\ntherefore used the expression, \u201c_in which it was commonly said_.\u201d\n\nThere has been just the same difficulty with reference to that remarkable\nmovement which originated at Oxford about fifty years ago, beginning with\nTractarianism, and now developed into Ritualism.  It has all along\nprofessed to be an effort for the revival of Church Principles, and as\nsuch has been heartily supported by a considerable number of loyal and\ntrue-hearted Churchmen.  By \u201cChurch Principles\u201d they have understood the\nreal principles of the Church of England; and, as loyal Churchmen, they\nhave welcomed the movement, believing it to be an effort to recommend and\ndevelop those principles.  In this they have been encouraged by the use\nof the epithet \u201cHigh.\u201d  The Ritualistic party call themselves \u201cHigh\nChurch,\u201d and so do many of that large class of Churchmen to whom I have\njust referred.  The result is that, although they have not altogether\napproved of some things which they have read or seen, still, on the\ngreat, broad basis of High Churchism they have considered that they have\nmore affinity with that movement than they have with those whom they\ndesignate \u201cLow.\u201d  They sincerely disapprove of many things said and done\nby Ritualists, but they cannot quite get over the fact that if Churchmen\nare to be classed as either High or Low, they and the Ritualists, at all\nevents, class themselves together as High.\n\nBut many amongst us have for a long time been profoundly convinced that\nthe Church principles of the loyal, conscientious, traditional High\nChurchman are totally different from the Church principles of the\nRitualist; and that the epithet \u201cHigh\u201d means in the language of the two\nclasses two totally different things.  In the one it means a faithful\nadhesion to the Prayer Book and its principles; but in the other a\ndissatisfaction with the Prayer Book, and a craving after something\nbeyond: in the one a rising to it, and in the other a departure from it.\nTo many amongst us this has been perfectly plain for years.  But still it\nhas been impossible to prove it, for there have been no authoritative\ndocuments; and, even if there had been any they would not have been\nlikely to contain any such avowal.  It has been seen perfectly clearly in\nsermons, in pamphlets, in books, and in the ceremonial imitation of Rome.\nBut still, individual words and actions could only be regarded as proofs\nof individual opinions, and therefore, although they left no doubt on the\nminds of observers, they could not be accepted as absolute proofs of\ndisloyalty against any of those who were not themselves guilty of\ndisloyal acts.\n\nBut a great change has now taken place, and we are brought into\naltogether a new position.  After the Church Congress at Derby there can\nno longer be any doubt on the subject, for we had there what was as\nnearly an authoritative statement as under the circumstances it is\npossible to expect.  It is needless to speak of that well-known body, the\nEnglish Church Union.  The E.C.U. was formed as a centre for the\nRitualistic movement, and it has ever since maintained its position as\nthe most widely extended and influential organization in existence for\nthe maintenance of Ritualistic principles.\n\nI believe, also, that it has been considered the most moderate of the\nvarious kindred associations, so that it embraces several who, as they\nexpress themselves, are not prepared to go to extremes.  Now, at the\nDerby Church Congress we had the advantage of hearing a most important\navowal from the President of this influential organization.  Of course,\nwe who do not belong to the Union have no means of knowing how far he\nspoke as the mouthpiece of the Council, or simply gave expression to his\nown personal opinion; but all must admit that when the President of the\nUnion, on such a great occasion, delivered a carefully prepared written\npaper at the request of the Bishop of the Diocese, we may regard that\npaper as approaching as nearly as possible to an authoritative\ndeclaration of the principles and purposes of the Union.\n\nWhat, then, did the President of the English Church Union say?  What line\ndid he pursue?  The subject of discussion was \u201cProposals for Liturgical\nImprovement,\u201d and Canon Venables accordingly made several important\npractical suggestions which he thought might tend without the slightest\nalteration of principle to increase the interest of our Liturgical\nworship.  But the President of the English Church Union did nothing of\nthe kind.  He made one proposal, and one only, namely, that those who\nwished to do so should be at liberty to abandon our present Prayer Book\naltogether, and adopt in its place the First Book of Edward VI.  His\nwords were: \u201cIn discussing the question of Liturgical Improvement, the\nproposal I have to make aims not so much at any change in our existing\nPrayer Book, as at the alternative use along with it of the First Prayer\nBook of Edward VI.\u201d  Nor was this all, for almost immediately afterwards\nhe awowed his preference for the unreformed liturgies, and the Use of\nSarum, above our English Prayer Book.  He said, \u201cThose who are at all\nacquainted with the unreformed Service books of the English Church must\noften have wondered how it came to pass that from a revision of originals\nso rich and varied as the Sarum Breviary, and the great English rite of\nS. Osmund, there should have resulted anything so meagre in comparison\nwith them as our existing daily Offices and Liturgy.\u201d  There is no\nmistaking these plain and outspoken words.  There is the distinct avowal\nof a preference for the unreformed Service books, while our own Prayer\nBook is described as being so meagre in companion with them that it is a\nwonder how it could have been derived from such rich and varied sources.\nNor is this an isolated sentence.  In another passage, he says, \u201cIn this\nrespect it is impossible to deny that our existing Communion Office is\nopen to grave exception.\u201d  The one object of the whole paper, indeed, is\nto give such evidence of the inferiority of our existing Liturgy as may\ninduce the Bishops to give permission (which, of course, they have no\npower to do) for the substitution under certain circumstances of another\nbook.\n\nIt is of no use, therefore, any longer to maintain the delusion that the\nmovements of the English Church Union are prompted by any love for the\nEnglish Prayer Book.  That book is condemned as \u201cmeagre,\u201d and \u201copen to\ngrave exceptions.\u201d  The preference is given to the unreformed services,\nand especially to the Use of Sarum; and it must be plainly understood\nthat if anything is suggested as a _via media_ or a _modus vivendi_, the\ntwo parties between whom it must be a _via media_ are on the one hand\nthose who avow their preference for the Use of Sarum, and on the other\nthose who with their whole heart delight in the reformed worship of our\ndear old Church of England.\n\nBut I have heard it said that the Use of Sarum was itself a reformed\nservice, and free from many of the abuses of Rome.  Thus Mr. Wood calls\nit \u201cThe great English rite of S. Osmund.\u201d  But surely he was mistaken in\nthat expression, for, though used in England, it was not an English rite.\nOsmund was a Norman Count, and having fought in the army of William the\nConqueror, was, as a reward for his services, first created Earl of\nDorset, and then appointed Bishop of Salisbury.  At the time of his\nappointment there was great religious dissension in the country\noccasioned by the introduction of the Gallican liturgy by William the\nConqueror, which was resisted by the English; and Osmund compiled the Use\nof Sarum in order, if possible, to harmonize all parties.  His chief\nwork, therefore, was to introduce, as far as possible, the Gallican\nelement; and in no sense whatever can that use be called \u201cThe great\nEnglish rite of S. Osmund.\u201d\n\nBut its origin is of little importance as compared with its contents.\nThe great question is, \u201cWhat is the real character of the book which is\nthus preferred to our \u2018meagre\u2019 English Prayer Book?\u201d  And it would be an\nimportant contribution to the present controversy if any of those who\nexalt its excellence would inform us of any one particular in which it\ndiffers in principle from the Romish Missal and Breviary.  There is not\nspace in such a paper as this for the investigation of its identity in\nall important points with the liturgies of Rome; but it would be\nextremely interesting to know in what that richness consists of which we\nheard so high an encomium at the Derby Church Congress.\n\nThree things may be briefly mentioned:\n\n(1.)  The Use of Sarum was certainly rich in Legends, and that to the\nexclusion of Scripture.  On such a subject we surely cannot have a better\nauthority than the preface to that First Book of Edward VI., which is now\nso strongly recommended.  In that Preface it is said:\n\n    \u201cThese many years past this godly and decent order of the ancient\n    fathers hath been so altered, broken, and neglected by planting in\n    uncertain stories, legends, responds, verses, vain repetitions,\n    commemorations, and synodals, that commonly, when any book of the\n    Bible was begun, before three or four chapters are read out, all the\n    rest were unread.\u201d\n\nAnd of these Legends, etc., the same preface adds, \u201cSome be untrue, some\nuncertain, some vain and superstitious.\u201d  If it is the omission of such\nLegends as these that makes our Prayer Book \u201cmeagre,\u201d all I can say is,\nLet us thank God for its meagreness.\n\n(2.)  Then, again, the Use of Sarum was rich in complicated and senseless\nceremonial.  The Preface already quoted says of these ceremonies:\n\n    \u201cSome at the first were of godly intent and purpose devised, and yet,\n    at length, turned to vanity and superstition; some . . . because they\n    were winked at in the beginning, they grew daily to more and more\n    abuses, which, not only for their unprofitableness, but also because\n    they have much blinded the people and obscured the glory of God, are\n    worthy to be cut away and clean rejected.\u201d\n\nIt may be well, perhaps, to give one illustration from the Sarum Missal:\n\u201cHere let the priest uncover the cup, and make the sign of the cross with\nthe host five times\u2014first beyond the cup on every side, secondly even\nwith the cup, thirdly within the cup, fourthly as the first, fifthly\nbefore the cup.\u201d  This is given simply as a specimen, and some may say\nthat there is no harm in it.  But I can scarcely believe it possible that\nanyone will hesitate to apply to it the language of the Preface, \u201cThis\nexcessive multitude of ceremonies was so great, and many of them so dark,\nthat, they did more confound and darken than declare and set forth\nChrist\u2019s benefits unto us.\u201d\n\n(3.)  The Use of Sarum was rich in saint worship.  For example, in the\nMissal the priest did not confess to God alone (I suppose that would have\nbeen meagre), but was directed to say, \u201cI confess to God, to blessed\nMary, to all the saints, and to you; because I have sinned too much by\nthought, word, and deed by my fault: I pray holy Mary, all the saints of\nGod, and you to pray for me.\u201d  Again, in the Litany, the Use of Sarum was\nfar in excess of the modern Church of Rome.  In the modern Romish Litany\nI count only forty-seven persons to whom prayer is addressed, including\nthe Virgin, two arch-angels, and the twelve apostles; but in the Use of\nSarum according to Bishop Short, {8} there were no less than 116 persons\naddressed.  Possibly some Gallican saints may have been added by S.\nOsmund.  On that point I am not prepared to speak; but of this I am\ncertain, that in regard to the worship of saints, all true English\nChurchmen will rejoice in the meagreness of the Church of England Prayer\nBook, and have no desire for the richness of the Use of Sarum.\n\nNow this is the book which, before the assembled Church Congress at\nDerby, was avowedly preferred to our English Prayer Book.  When,\ntherefore, it is said that there is a clear preference for the worship of\nRome, no one can any longer regard it as a calumnious or unfounded\naccusation.  We have the open, plain, and undisguised avowal of the\nPresident of the English Church Union, that the English Prayer Book is\n\u201cmeagre,\u201d and the Use of Sarum rich; the English Communion Office open to\ngrave objections, and the unreformed liturgies so superior, that it is a\nwonder how anything so inferior as the English Prayer Book could have\nbeen compiled from such rich materials.  Let no one, therefore, from this\nday forward, suppose that it is the object of the Union to uphold the\nReformed Church of England, or to maintain its worship; but let it be\nclearly and distinctly understood, that the preference has been publicly\ngiven to the Use of Sarum and the unreformed liturgies.\n\nBut the avowal of a preference, it may be said, is not a proposal; and if\nwe had nothing more than such an avowal, it might be supposed that there\nwas no intention of any practical action.  Such a supposition, however,\nis rendered impossible by the proposal which followed, viz., that there\nshould be the alternative use of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.\n\nNow let anyone look for a moment at the line of argument, and the meaning\nof this proposal is self-evident.\n\nThe argument is, that because the unreformed liturgies and the Use of\nSarum are superior to our English Prayer Book, therefore we are to give\nthe liberty to make use of the First Book instead of our own.  Is it not\nobvious that the whole force of the argument depends on the fact that the\nFirst Book of Edward approximates to these unreformed liturgies more\nnearly than does our present book?  It is preferred because it is more in\naccordance with that which is considered the best, viz., the Use of\nSarum.  This proposal, when regarded in connection with the avowed\npreference, carries with it its own condemnation, and ought at once to\nput all true Churchmen on their guard.\n\nWe are brought to exactly the same conclusion by the historical position\nof the book.  The Reformation was not a sudden act, and our English\nPrayer Book was not born in a day.  The work began with the King\u2019s Primer\nin A.D. 1545, which was followed in A.D. 1548 by the first Communion\nService\u2014the chief object of which was the restoration of the cup to the\nlaity; but the first reformed Liturgy for morning and evening worship was\nthe First Book of Edward VI., in A.D. 1549.  Now let no one undervalue,\nfor one moment, the greatness, or importance, of the work which was\naccomplished in the publication of this book.  The compilers cleared away\nsuch a vast amount of Romish superstition and error that it is impossible\nnot to admire the courage and wisdom with which they acted.  They were\nperfectly justified, therefore, in describing it as a godly book, and in\nascribing their success to the gracious help of the Holy Spirit Himself;\nnevertheless, when the book was published it was found that there were\nsome parts in it which still required alteration, and a revision became\nnecessary.  There were certain things still left which required removal,\nso that when any further change was objected to by the Papists it was\nanswered: \u201cThat it was no wonder that the corruptions which they had been\nintroducing for above a thousand years were not all discovered and thrown\nout at once\u201d (Bishop Burnet).  Besides which, there were certain\nexpressions which it was just possible to understand in the Romish sense.\n{10}  It was clearly of the utmost importance to avoid the possibility of\nany such doubt or misapprehension; and as the Reformers had no desire\nthat their trumpet should give an uncertain sound, the book was carefully\nrevised.  In the Act of Parliament which sanctioned the revision the\nreason was given as follows:\u2014\n\n    \u201cThat there had been divers doubts raked about the manner of the\n    ministration of the Service, rather by the curiosity of the ministers\n    and mistakers than of any other worthy cause; and that for the better\n    explanation of that, and for the greater perfection of the Service is\n    some places where it was fit to make the Prayer and fashion of\n    Service more earnest, and fit to stir Christian people to the true\n    honouring of Almighty God, therefore it had been by the command of\n    the King and Parliament perused, explained, and made more perfect.\u201d\n\nThe Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. was the result of that revision;\nand, although it was subsequently both slightly altered and added to in\n1560 and 1604 till it reached its present form in 1662, we must regard\nthat Second Book as the completion of the great work of the Reformation\nso ably, but still imperfectly, commenced in the First.  The history,\ntherefore, places the First Book in exactly the same position as that in\nwhich it was placed in the argument of Mr. Wood, viz., an intermediate\nposition between the Use of Sarum and the present English Prayer Book.\nIt was a great and noble effort but yet not complete.  It was a great\nmovement in the right direction, but there were still in it certain most\nserious defects; and what was more important, it contained certain\npassages which those who were to disposed might misinterpret in the\nRomish sense.\n\nYet this is the book to which we are now invited to return; and it is\nonly reasonable that we should ask the reason why.  We are content with\nour beloved old English Prayer Book, in which, ever since we began to\nworship at all, we have poured out our hearts in holy communion with God.\nWhy should we either forsake it, or throw the whole Church into confusion\nby the admission of an alternative service?\n\nCertainly not because the First Book is less \u201cmeagre\u201d than the second;\nfor, beyond all controversy, it was the more meagre of the two.  Morning\nand evening prayer began in it with the Lord\u2019s Prayer, and therefore\ncontained neither texts, address, confession, nor absolution.  They also\nended with the third Collect, and therefore contained none of the prayers\nfor the Queen, Royal Family, &c.  The \u201cPrayers and Thanksgivings on\nseveral occasions\u201d were not included, so that the familiar words of the\n\u201cPrayer for all Conditions of Men,\u201d as well as the \u201cGeneral\nThanksgiving,\u201d were not in it.  The Commandments were not there; and the\nCatechism contained nothing about the Sacraments.  And what has become of\nsome importance since the subject has been mooted, there was no\nOrdination Service.  It is well to bear this in mind, because it is the\nfashion with some persons to quote the 36th Article as giving a sanction\nto the First Book.  And Mr. Wood said, in his address at Derby, that \u201cat\nthis very moment it {11} has the direct sanction and approval of the 36th\nArticle.\u201d  But he must have either forgotten or ignored the fact that the\nordinal to which the 36th Article refers was published quite\nindependently of the book, and was never made a part of it.  In 1552 the\nordinal, with certain changes, was introduced into the Second Book; but\nit was never made a part of the First.  The Article, therefore, has no\nreference of any kind whatever to the First Book, and in that book there\nwas no Ordination Service.\n\nIt must be clear, therefore, to the most superficial observer, that the\nattraction of the First Book does not consist in its richness.  If our\nown Prayer Book is \u201cmeagre,\u201d the First Book is much more so.  The changes\nsubsequently made have been chiefly in the direction of addition, and\nthere must be some other reason which renders it so attractive.  And what\nis that reason?  There is an expression in \u00a7 743 of Bishop Short\u2019s\n\u201cHistory of the Church of England,\u201d which answers the question.  The\nBishop there says: \u201cOn the whole, this book forms a connecting link\nbetween the Missal and the Prayer Book.\u201d  Now, if this be the case, it is\nno wonder if those who prefer the Missal desire the substitution of this\nbook for our present Prayer Book.  The time may not be come for the\nintroduction of the Missal itself; but that may follow in time, if they\ncan now secure the connecting link.  If this be the case, the reasons\nwhich lead men now to desire it are precisely those which led the\nReformers to reform it.  It is nearer Rome than our English Prayer Book.\nTherefore it was that the Reformers reformed it, and therefore it is that\nthey who prefer \u201cthe unreformed liturgies\u201d desire to return to it.  This\nmay be seen very clearly in Mr. Wood\u2019s address.  He enumerates several of\nthe advantages that he considers would be gained by a return to it, such\nis a closer conformity to the order of \u201cthe canon\u201d of the Mass; the\nomission of the Ten Commandments, and the \u201cDearly Beloved;\u201d \u201cthe\nreservation for the sick;\u201d \u201cthe unction of the sick;\u201d and prayer for the\ndead.\n\nTo these he might have added the restoration of an altar in place of \u201cthe\ntable\u201d with its \u201cfair white linen cloth;\u201d and of the name \u201cThe Mass\u201d in\naddition to the \u201cHoly Communion;\u201d the sanction for auricular confession\nin the Communion Service, combined with the omission of the General\nConfession in the Morning and Evening Prayer; the omission from the words\nof administration of the clause, \u201cTake and eat this in remembrance that\nChrist died for thee, and feed on Him in thine heart by faith with\nthanksgiving\u201d and the presence of certain other expressions which it was\njust possible for \u201cmistakers\u201d to understand as teaching the localization\nin the consecrated elements of the actual human person of our blessed\nRedeemer now seated at the right hand of God.\n\nBut there is one other result of a return to the First Book which is of\nsupreme importance, though I have not yet seen any notice of it in the\nrecent discussion, viz., that by returning to the First Book we should\nget behind the date of the Articles.  The Articles were not drawn up till\nthe year A.D. 1552, so that by adopting the First Book we should go back\nto a date at which the Articles did not exist, at which, in fact, the\nChurch of England had drawn up no formal dogmatic protest against the\nerrors of Rome.  The Reformation began with the reform of the Liturgy,\nbefore there was any authoritative statement of distinctive truth, and\nwhen the minds of men were passing through a rapid transition.  To this\ntransition period the First Book belongs; and if we were to decide on\nadopting the Liturgy of the transition there would be a manifest\ninconsistency in combining with it those definite statements of truth\nwhich were carefully drawn up afterwards when the great gulf was past,\nand the work of the Reformation in essential points complete.\n\nWith all these facts before us, it is impossible to mistake the character\nof the proposal made.  Whether we look at the history or the contents of\nthe book, we are brought to the same conclusion.  It is not a proposal to\nimprove our Prayer Book or to adapt it to the special demands of the day.\nIt is a proposal to depart from the Prayer Book altogether, and to return\nto the transition state through which the Church of England passed in the\ntransition days of the Reformation.  The First Book of Edward bore just\nthe same relationship to the Use of Sarum that Basingstoke does to the\ncity of Salisbury.  The Reformers halted awhile there on the up line, but\nthey could not rest, so they soon left it to complete their journey.  We\nare now invited to return there; but is there any thinking man who can\nsuppose for one moment that we are intended to remain there, when we have\nthe public avowal of the undenied preference for \u201cthe unreformed\nliturgies\u201d and the Use of Sarum?  Is it not perfectly clear that the\nattraction to the First Book is simply this, that it is a station for the\nexpress train on the direct down line to Sarum?\n\nAnd now, how will this proposal be received? or rather, how will it be\nreceived by that large body of men who wish to be considered \u201cHigh\nChurchmen,\u201d and who mean by that expression that they entertain a loyal,\nloving, and faithful allegiance to the grand old Church of England, into\nwhich they were received at their baptism, and of which those who are\nclergymen have been its appointed officers ever since their ordination?\nWill they, or will they not, be prepared for this new departure?  Are\nthey prepared to abandon all the historical loyalty of their party; to\ngive up their beloved Prayer Book as \u201cmeagre\u201d and \u201copen to grave\nobjections;\u201d to throw overboard their Articles and the latter part of\ntheir Catechism; and to go boldly back to the period of transition, when\nmuch, we fully admit, was improved, but nothing defined; when great\nthings were done, but when much still remained to be done; and when\nnothing was matured or consolidated as we now have it in our Articles and\nLiturgy?  If they are prepared for such a movement, it will certainly be\na new phase in the character of the historical, loyal, and influential\nHigh Churchmanship of England.\n\n                                                                 E. HOARE.\n\n                      [Picture: Decorative graphic]\n\n\n\n\nWORKS BY THE REV. CANON HOARE.\n\n\nROME, TURKEY, AND JERUSALEM.  17th Thousand.  16mo. cloth, 1s. 6d; paper\ncover, 1s.\n\nPALESTINE AND RUSSIA.  5th Thousand.  16mo. cloth, 1s. 6d; paper cover,\n1s.\n\nREDEMPTION.  A Companion Volume to _Sanctification_.  In square fcap.\n8vo. 2s. 6d.\n\nSANCTIFICATION.  Third edition.  In square fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.\n\nDOCTRINE OF THE LORD\u2019S SUPPER, as taught by the Church of England.  Fcap.\n8vo. sewed, 6d.\n\nCONFORMITY TO THE WORLD.  New edition, revised.  16mo. cloth, 1s. 6d.;\npaper cover, 1s.\n\nINSPIRATION: ITS NATURE AND EXTENT.  New edition, revised.  16mo. cloth,\n1s. 6d.; paper cover, 1s.\n\nTHE COMMUNION AND COMMUNICANT.  New cheap edition, revised and enlarged.\n18mo. sewed, 3d.; or 2s. 6d.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n_BY THE LATE MRS. E. HOARE_.\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN MOTHER; or, NOTES FOR MOTHERS\u2019 MEETINGS.  2nd edition.  1s.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{8}  \u201cHistory of the Church of England,\u201d \u00a7 744.\n\n{10}  There was a passage, for example, quoted in the _Guardian_ of\nDecember 6th, 1882, in which Gardiner is reported to have said: \u201cWilleth\nchildren to be taught that they receive with their bodily mouth the body\nand blood of Christ, which I allege, because it will appear it is a\nteaching set forth among us of late, as hath been also and is by the Book\nof Common Prayer, being the most true Catholic doctrine of the substance\nof the sacrament in that is there so Catholicity spoken of.\u201d  I do not\nsay that Gardiner was right in this statement, but I do say that if there\nwas anything to justify his assertion, it was most desirable that as soon\nas possible it should be removed.\n\n{11}  _Guardian_, Oct. 11.  I observe that the words \u201cAs regards the\nCommunion Office\u201d have been added in the authorised report.","title":"The New Departure; Or, Thoughts for Loyal Churchmen","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":4897}