The New Departure, by Edward Hoare

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

THE NEW DEPARTURE;
or,
Thoughts for Loyal Churchmen.

p. 3THE 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,” p. 4and 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.

p. 5I 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 p. 6meagre 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 p. 7Prayer 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.

(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:

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:

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 p. 8of 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.

p. 9But 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 p. 10objected 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. [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:—

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 p. 11which 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 p. 12been 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. p. 131552, 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 p. 14loyalty 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. 15WORKS BY THE REV. CANON HOARE.

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

REDEMPTION. A Companion Volume to Sanctification. 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.

FOOTNOTES.

[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.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NEW DEPARTURE; OR, THOUGHTS FOR LOYAL CHURCHMEN ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The New Departure; Or, Thoughts for Loyal Churchmen

THE NEW DEPARTURE;
or,
Thoughts for Loyal Churchmen.

p. 3THE NEW DEPARTURE;
OR,
THOUGHTS FOR LOYAL CHURCHMEN.

p. 15WORKS BY THE REV. CANON HOARE.

BY THE LATE MRS. E. HOARE.

FOOTNOTES.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The New Departure; Or, Thoughts for Loyal Churchmen

THE NEW DEPARTURE; or, Thoughts for Loyal Churchmen.

p. 3THE NEW DEPARTURE; OR, THOUGHTS FOR LOYAL CHURCHMEN.

p. 15WORKS BY THE REV. CANON HOARE.

BY THE LATE MRS. E. HOARE.

FOOTNOTES.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

THE NEW DEPARTURE;
or,
Thoughts for Loyal Churchmen.

p. 3THE NEW DEPARTURE;
OR,
THOUGHTS FOR LOYAL CHURCHMEN.