This is a term which has two meanings, the first gained some popularity in the 19th century but later died out, the second is much older and relates to Bishop Hobart, as it describes the spirit of American high churchmanship. I refer you to the link below to Peter Toon's article on this point. Basically as the Tractarian Movement changed churchmanship in England and with the introduction of modernism, many Churchmen wanted to know where they stood in relation to the new types of churchmanship. Many felt they were simultaneously embodying the spirit of different types of churchmanship (evangelical and high church), those who were Evangelicals first but later felt they also sympathized with the High Church tradition were called High Church Evangelicals with "High Church" as the adjective and High Churchmen who felt sympathetic to the Evangelical movement were called Evangelical High Churchmen, with "Evangelical" as the adjective. The word also relates to Bishop Hobart's spirit of high churchmanship which operated in America on the eve of the Oxford Movement and later blended with or coexisted with Anglo-Catholicism. Hobart's lifelong maxim was "Evangelical Truth and Apostolic Order," which really encapsulates the spirit of Hobartian churchmanship. The spirit of Bishop John Henry Hobart are exemplified by this quote,
"In the correct sense of the term, High Churchmen disclaim the imputation of not being evangelical. It is only when faithless to their principles that they are not pre-eminently so. Are they distinguished by their zeal for the Church in the ministrations and ordinances annexed to it by Christ and his apostles? But it is the only object of these ministrations and ordinances, to excite and to cherish a lively and holy faith in the atoning merits of the Son of God, who gave himself for this Church; and to convey to the soul the quickening and sanctifying influences of the divine Spirit which animates this mystical body of the Redeemer; and thus to assure to the faithful that they are "heirs through hope of God's heavenly kingdom." Pardon, justification, eternal life, as the free gift of God the Father, through the merits and intercession of his eternal Son, and through the renovating and sanctifying agency of the Holy Ghost--these are the great evangelical truths which alone render of value or of efficacy, the ministrations and ordinances for which the High Churchman contends--and which so deeply pervade that Liturgy which he cherishes with a sacred affection, only inferior to that with which he regards the inspired volume. These then are the truths which, faithful to his principles, he must most ardently cherish, most strenuously and zealously inculcate. Evangelical the High Churchman must be, or, in contending for the Church and Liturgy, he will prove either that he understands not their nature, their excellencies, their divine and spiritual objects; or that the deep guilt of inconsistency with the most sacred principles, and of an indifference in the most important of all interests, the salvation of the soul, rests upon his conscience." (HCV)
Bishop Hobart delivered several charges which outline the principles of High Churchmanship, in an American context. I will rely on several of Hobart's speeches and sermons but specifically, "The Churchman: The Principles of the Churchman Stated and Explained, in Distinction from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome and from the Errors of Certain Protestant Sects." Notice a subtle point in the title of the charge, that being that the entirety of the Roman system is implied to be denied by churchmen but only certain errors of certain Protestant sects are to be avoided. This shows one key feature of High Churchmanship which has been lost due to Tractarian influence. Old High Churchmen were decidedly Protestant and anti-Roman but they avoided some of the errors of some Protestant churches. A good example of this is where Hobart says, "The CHURCHMAN claims this appellation, because rejecting equally Papal corruptions and Protestant errors, he adheres in all essential points to the faith, ministry, and worship, which distinguished the apostolic and primitive Church, and particularly to the constitution of the Christian ministry under its three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." This sums up the main focus of High Churchmanship. The High Churchman rejects all the corruptions of Papal Rome and certain errors which have crept up in the churches of the Reformation.
Hobart begins by distinguishing the relationship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States with other "Protestant Episcopal" churches as he terms them. First, "In its particular signification, I shall consider it as designating the sound member of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country; which agreeing with all other Protestant Episcopal Churches in the leading points of faith, in the essentials of worship, and in the Episcopal constitution of the ministry, differs, in some subordinate matters of discipline and worship, from them, as they do from each other," meaning that there is no substantial differences between the Church of England and the Episcopal Church of Scotland. All accept the same Articles and a similar Liturgy based on scriptural truth and apostolic order. Hobart goes on in detail,
"The Protestant Episcopal Church in this country must ever acknowledge with gratitude, and she makes the acknowledgment in her preface to the Liturgy, that to the Church of England she is "indebted, under God, for her first foundation, and for a long continuance of nursing care and protection." In common with that Church she holds her Articles of Faith, and her inestimable Liturgy. The apostolic succession of Bishops, which that Church and the Episcopal Church of Scotland received uninterrupted from the apostolic age, was by those Churches transmitted to her. But she differs from them both, and especially from the former, in the organization of her discipline, and in many offices of human appointment; and most essentially from the Church of England in her entire independence on the state--being in this respect, as is the Church of Scotland, in the same condition as the primitive Church before the patronage of the first Christian emperor enriched her with the wealth, and adorned her with the honours of the empire."
He also disinguishes between the Roman concept of unity as defined by communion with the See of Rome and asserts the autonomy of Protestant Episcopal Churches. He also distinguishes between the visible and invisible church,
"The Papal opinion of Church unity, that it consists in communion with the Bishop of Rome, as the visible head of the Catholic Church, has so little foundation in Scripture and in primitive practice, that it could not stand the test of that spirit of free inquiry which the Reformation excited. But many bodies of reformed Christians, who renounced the corruptions and usurpations of the Church of Rome, were not so happy as to carry with them that primitive Episcopacy which subsisted in the Church from which they separated, and which others of their brethren laid at the foundation of the external order of their churches. Such is the natural course of the human mind, through the gradations of error, that a departure from Episcopacy, the scriptural and primitive principle of Church unity, at first exercised on the plea of necessity, became afterwards wholly justified on the ground of right The assumption, of the Episcopal powers of ordination by Presbyters led to the usurpation of the powers both of Bishops and Presbyters by laymen. The separation of Episcopal Protestants fro ma Church which imposed sinful terms of communion, has been unwarrantably pleaded in evidence of the right of individual ministers and individual Christians, to establish communions as their judgment may dictate, wholly regardless of that primitive bond of Church unity, the ministry of Bishops. Thus we see the Protestant world divided into sects, the numbers or the tenets of which it is almost impossible to enumerate. And as the climax of this scale of error, we now hear the sentiments advanced and defended, on almost all occasions, in the writings of able divines, and in the language of Christian associations, which bid fair to obtain an unprecedented popularity, that all differences among Christians, except as to fundamental points of doctrine, are non-essential; and that separate communions without number, unless there is unsoundness in the faith, do not violate Church unity. But the unity of the Church is an obvious and fundamental doctrine of Scripture; and visible unity is entirely incompatible with distinct communions. Hence, the tenet of an invisible Church, of which all are covenanted members who exercise faith, threatens to subvert the doctrine, professed in the ancient creeds, of a visible Church, "one, Catholic, and Apostolic."" (CCR)
The most important doctrine is that of the justification of man. Hobart begins his discussion of this with the Church's doctrine of man. First, it is important to recall the statements made in the Articles of Religion,
"IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin."
Hobart claims then that Churchmen are agreed with Protestants against Romanists, "who maintains the ability of the natural man, unassisted by supernatural strength, to do works which render it fit in God to bestow grace, (works which "deserve grace of congruity,") and which thus recommends him to the divine favour." While rejecting a gross oversimplification of the doctrine of total depravity which can lead to a sense of fatalism, Hobart equally affirms, "he cherishes a lively and deep sense of the propensity to evil which infects his nature through the dominion which his appetites exercise over his reason, his will, and his affections; of his utter inability, except through faith and grace, to do works which, however good in themselves, will be acceptable to God; and of his guilt in those numerous actual transgressions which, through grace, it was in his power to avoid." This leads to the crucial difference between Romanists and Churchmen, "It is this doctrine of justification and salvation only through the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, his divine Lord and Redeemer, which the CHURCHMAN daily and constantly cherishes as the only solace of his wounded conscience, and the only ground on which he can hope for acceptance at the tribunal of his Almighty Judge, and for advancement to the celestial glories which infinitely transcend the merit of his best works."
Because the grace of God is available freely to those who believe, the Churchman, "rejects, with horror, the idea of bowing, with the Romanist, to created intercessors, to saints and images; and of invoking, in epithets of celestial dignity and sovereignty, the intercession of the virgin mother of the Saviour, in derogation of the sole and all-sufficient mediation of her divine and blessed Son," there is no warrant for these practices in Scripture or in the ancient Fathers, "The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
Hobart then proceeds to disagree with some aspects of the "imputation" language used in justification. "rejecting the phraseology of the imputed righteousness of Christ, not because always exceptionable in meaning, but always liable to a dangerous application. For if, as in the language of some Protestants, the righteousness of Christ be imputed to believers, so that they are clothed with it, and that God views and accepts them only as invested with it, then the Antinomian doctrine is an unavoidable inference, that God can see no sin in believers; and that, therefore, they need not obey the moral law." Peter Toon has writeen about the doctrine of justification in his work Justification and Sanctification, where he details different approaches to this doctrine. Interestingly, he documents that Luther originally did not use "imputation" language in describing justification by faith alone (for further reading: http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/Doctrine/justsanct1.htm). However the Articles do use this kind of language, "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings." However it appears that Hobart is only rejecting a misunderstanding of the language which could lead to Antimonianism, which the Church clearly rejects. He goes on to add, "This dangerous inference the Churchman avoids when he expresses the sole efficacy of the merits and grace of Christ to his salvation in the unexceptionable language, that the imperfect obedience of the believer, performed in the exercise of faith, and through the influences of divine grace, are accepted only on account of the merits and intercession of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; or, that "we are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
The next section in Hobart's charge deals with sacraments. This flows from his discussion of justification for the means by which we receive the grace of God is the sacraments and the ordinances of the Church. He quickly clarifies what he means by this in stating, with the Articles, in opposition to the principle of ex opere operato, "He is very far, indeed, from the impiety and absurdity of supposing, with the Romanists, that the sacraments, and ordinances, and ministrations of the Church are available to salvation, opere operato, on account merely of the performance of them, in virtue of the work itself, and the intention of the administrator." While rejecting the Roman notion of ex opere operato, the High Churchman equally rejects empty memorialism, for the Church is the divinely appointed means of encountering God in the world. "But still viewing the Church as the divinely constituted body of Christ, to which he applies the merits of his blood, and the efficacy of his grace, and considering the sacraments, in the language of his Church, as "a means whereby he receives, and as a pledge to assure him of," all those spiritual blessings which Christ's merits purchased, and his grace confers; and, considering further, that Christ set over this Church ministers to celebrate its sacraments and ordinances, he would think that he hazarded his salvation if he refused or neglected to receive these means and pledges of the divine favour. Sincere repentance and lively faith producing obedience to the divine commands, qualify the believer for acceptance through the merits of his Redeemer. But, surely, it would be difficult for him to establish his claim to salvation on Gospel principles, while he rejects or neglects those sacraments, ordinances, and ministrations which are 'a means whereby he receives the same, and a pledge to assure him thereof.'" So at the same time the High Churchman affirms the instrumentality of the sacraments as means of grace for Christians and yet also insisting that the means is only available to those who receive in faith (and faith is given to those by God alone!).
He then goes on to discuss, "baptism as the sacramental commencement of the spiritual life." Old High Churchmen were known for their strong views on baptism and its relationship to regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Hobart does two good things here, first, he describes what baptismal regeneration is not and then he offers an explanation of what it actually is. "He does not employ the term... to denote the divine influences upon the soul in its sanctification and renovation, in abolishing the body of sin, and raising up the graces and virtues of the new man." However, the doctrine is explained as such,
"The term regeneration is used by him in its original, and appropriate, and technical acceptation, to denote the translation of the baptized person from that state in which, as destitute of any covenanted title to salvation, he is styled "the child of wrath," into that state which, as it proffers to him in all cases, the covenated mercy and grace of God, and in the exercise of repentance and faith actually conveys to him these blessings, is styled a "state of salvation." It must be obvious, that the sacramental commencement of the spiritual life in the regeneration of baptism, and the subsequent sanctification of the principles, the powers, and affections of the new man by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, are distinct acts and operations; the former leading to the latter, which, without it, is wholly inefficatious to salvation, on the contrary, increases the condemnation of the despiser of the gifts and calling of God."
The Churchmen, then, believes that the Holy Spirit is not confined to the ordinances of the Church, however, neither is he divorced from them, against both Protestant and Roman errors on this matter. It is interesting to compare Hobart's view on baptism with Waterland's remarks on the subject in the 18th century,
"Regeneration on the part of the grantor, God Almighty, means admission
or adoption into sonship, or spiritual citizenship: and on the part of the
grantee, viz. man, it means his birth, or entrance into that state of sonship
or citizenship. It is God that adopts or regenerates, like as it is God that
justifies. Man does not adopt, regenerate, or justify himself, whatever hand
he may otherwise have (but still under grace) in preparing or qualifying
himself for it. God makes the grant, and it is entirely his act: man receives
only, and is acted upon; though sometimes active in qualifying himself, as
in the case of adults, and sometimes entirely passive, as in the case of
infants. The thing granted and received is a change from the state natural
into the state spiritual; a translation from the curse of Adam into the grace
of Christ. This change, translation or adoption carries in it many Christian
blessings and priviliges, but all reducible to two, viz. remission of sins,
(absolute or conditional,) and a covenant-claim, for the time being, to
eternal happiness. Those blessings may all be forfeited, or finally lost, if a
person revolts from God...; and then such person is no longer in a
regenerate state, or a state of sonship, with respect to any saving effects:
but still God’s original grant of adoption or sonship in Baptism stands in
full force, to take place as often as any such revolter shall return, and not
otherwise: and if he desires to be as before, he will not want to be
regenerated again, but renewed, or reformed. Regeneration complete
stands in two things, which are, as it were, its two integral parts; the grant
made over to the person, and the reception of that grant. The grant once
made continues always the same; but the reception may vary, because it
depends upon the condition of the recipient"
Hobart briefly mentiosn confirmation, commenting on the apostolic nature of the rite and the purity preserved in the Prayer Book by only using the act of laying on of hands as the sign.
Next, the Lord's Supper enters the discussion. Hobart rejects wholeheartedly the Roman corruptions of the biblical doctrine.
"He shudders--and reason sanctions the powerful impulse of nature--at the unparalleled absurdity, the tremendous impiety, of changing, by a literal construction of language evidently figurative, bread and wine into the body, soul, and divinity of his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; of thus literally feasting on his Redeemer; and of bowing to these inanimate elements, and calling them his God, his Saviour. The adherents of the Papacy shuddering too at the naked view of this, I think I may call it, horrible doctrine of transubstantiation, are sometimes disposed to disguise its deformity, and to assert, that on this point the Church of Rome does not go further than our own Church, when she maintains the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist: as if his spiritual presence, by the spiritual graces and blessings which he bestows on the faithful in the reception of the holy supper, was the same with his substantial presence--his presence, soul, body, and divinity--under the qualities of bread and wine."
But this corruption does not warrant bare memorialism which has corrupted many Protestant sects. The words of our Lord are clear and this is gladly accepted by High Churchmen.
"Many of them regard the Eucharist as merely a feast; in which, with suitable dispositions, bread and wine are received in memory of their Saviour. But surely something more than this was meant when our blessed Redeemer solemnly took the bread and wine and blessed them. For what did he bless them? Surely to be symbols of his body and blood. As symbols they must have been offered as an act of worship to his Almighty Father. As symbols they were given to the disciples, and received by them. And all this which he did, Christ commanded his disciples to do in remembrance of him, and thus to show forth his death until he come."
Then we are given a definition of the Lord's Supper according to the Scriptures,
"On this authority our Church directs the Priest, in her Communion office, to bless the bread and wine, to be symbols of the body, and blood of Christ, and thus to make a solemn oblation of them to the Father, beseeching him that they who worthily receive them may be partakers of his body and blood. This form of celebrating the Eucharist conformable to the liturgies of the primitive ages she has derived immediately from the venerable Episcopal Church of Scotland, who, by God's gracious Providence, has preserved, through great sufferings and trials, the faith, ministry, and worship of the first and purest ages of the Church."
Hobart then discusses the relation of sacrifice to the Supper,
"The Churchman then maintains the oblation in the Eucharist of the bread and wine as symbols and memorials of the body and blood of Christ. He will not be tenacious of the term sacrifice as applicable to the offering of the consecrated elements. For in the appropriate application of the term it doubtless denoted those offerings only in which there was shedding of blood. Neither the liturgy of his Church, nor the primitive liturgies, apply this term to the bread and wine of the Eucharist. All due significance is given to this most sacred ordinance when there is a solemn oblation made by God's authorized minister of the consecrated bread and wine, as symbols and memorials of the body and blood of Christ; assuring to those who worthily receive them all the blessings of his meritorious cross and passion."
Hobart is similar to other American High Churchmen in his acceptance of the oblation of bread and wine in the Eucharist. In an American context, this is implied in the Liturgy, which was adapted from the Scottish Liturgy. In England, many High Churchmen adopted views identical to that of the Evangelicals and Low Churchmen, accepting a "feast upon a sacrifice" but not necessarily a commemorative sacrifice.
Hobart discusses the value of having prescribed liturgy for the Church. It is valuable to have liturgy to guard doctrine and educate the laity in matters of doctrine. The liturgy also guarded against "enthusiasm" a trait which Episcopalians at the time wrote against frequently. Hobart says, "Another obvious characteristic of the Churchman is his adherence to a worship by a prescribed form--a measure which so effectually secures all the essentials of worship; soundness and accuracy in the matter of the prayers, perspicuity and pathos in the style, reverence, solemnity, and order in the manner, that even if it were not sanctioned by the practice of the [23/24] Jewish Church, and by the prescription and example of Christ and his apostles, the sober reason of mankind would have recourse to it." It is also important to remember that when pre-Tractarian authors write about "liturgy" they mean just that, liturgy. They did not have an elaborate ceremonial like we do now. The only prescribed ceremonies were those contained in the Prayer Book. The important thing for them was the catholicity and apostolicity of the text of the liturgy itself.
Christian ministers are authorized and given the divine authority to declare absolution to troubled sinners. This doctrine is based on a passage in the Gospel of St. John, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." The English Liturgy contained a form for absolution to be used specifically in the Visitation of the Sick but likely was used in other contexts. The American Liturgy left out this form of absolution. The ministers authority to declare absolution is effective in private and in public in the Liturgy of the Church. Hobart speaks out sharply against private confession,
"But while in making this absolution a part of the daily service, he differs from his Protestant brethren in general, he even more essentially differs from the Church of Rome. For the Church of Rome makes the absolution of the Priest in the sacrament of penance essential to the salvation of every individual. The Churchman only considers a general absolution as an edifying and consolatory part of public service. The Church of Rome makes auricular confession--the private confession to the Priest by every individual of all his sins of thought, word, and deed--an indispensable condition of forgiveness. The Churchman justly deems auricular confession and private absolution, an encroachment on the rights of conscience, an invasion of the prerogative of the Searcher of Hearts, and, with some exceptions, hostile to domestic and social happiness, and licentious and corrupting in its tendency."
However, before the Oxford Movement, the biggest distinction between High Churchmen and Low Churchmen (the latter which was not necessarily Evangelicals, which didn't really become a church party "proper" until the Latitudinarians became Broad Churchmen after the effects of Ritualism became widespread) was that High Churchmen stressed the importance of the visible church and its unique features and qualities in the Anglican tradition. Thus the High Churchmen (rightly) stress the importance of the liturgy and the divine order of bishops, priests, and deacons. It is interesting to read the debates of the 18th century, where High Churchmen were debating the validity of the baptism of those in non-episcopal churches and the validity of their orders. The earlier opionion (even of the Laudians) was that the sacraments and orders were valid in non-episcopal churches of the Reformation who had, out of necessity, departed from episcopacy in order to be liberated from Romanism. However, by the mid 18th century, Lutheran orders were being questioned (Noncomformists' orders were always considered invalid by High Churchmen). Eventually, High Churchmen decided that baptism by non-episcopal minsters was valid by the grace of God. I saw all this to stress the importance of the apostolic ministry to High Churchmen. However, it is important to remember that High Churchmen did not ascribe sacerdotal powers to Christian ministers (at least the mainstream body, some Nonjurors got close). Hobart adds,
"The Church is a divinely constituted society, of which Christ is the Head. Its officers must derive their commission from him its Head. This commission [27/28] is transmitted through a superior order of the ministry, among whom ranked Timothy and Titus, subsequently called Bishops. By union with the Church the mystical body of Christ is our union in the exercise of penitence and faith to be maintained with him its Head. Union with the Church cannot exist where we are not in union with the ministry deriving their power through the legitimate channel from the Head of the Church. The Churchman believing that this order is the order of Bishops, would think that, in separating from their ministrations, he cut himself off from the communion of the Church, and was guilty of the sin of schism."
However, Hobart distinguishes between the errors of the Church of Rome by ascribing too much authority to the Church thus making it infallible.
"The period was when the decrees of ecclesiastical councils were received as the infallible decisions of Christian verity; when it was supposed that the spirit which presided in the assembly of the inspired Apostles, and led them into all truth, exercised the same divine agency in the subsequent councils of fallible men; and thus the dogmas of the Church of Rome, set forth by her councils, and authoritatively ratified by her supreme head, demanded and received the Same implicit reverence and submission as the decisions of the oracles of the living God. The pretensions, which thus claimed the unerring certainty of inspiration, for the decisions of men, who gave no evidence of their supernatural power, were stamped with too much absurdity and impiety to receive general credit, except in an age when the human mind, sunk in ignorance, was bound by the shackles of superstition. When enlightened by science, she shook off her degrading bondage, and carried the torch of inquiry into the recesses of the conclave, whence, it was said, issued the unerring decrees of the Divine Spirit; so many tenets, shocking to reason, both for their folly and their blasphemy; so much intrigue and corruption, disgusting to the honourable and upright mind, disgraced the counsels and the conduct of those who, wearing the Apostles' commission, claimed also the guidance of apostolic inspiration, that their decrees were rejected equally with their claims to infallibility, as repugnant both to the dictates of common sense and the decisions of the word of God." (CCR)
Yet in typical High Church fashion, this does not warrant unlimited private judgement at the expense of the authority of the Church,
"God forbid, my Brethren, that I should say aught against the right of private judgment in matters of religion, when properly exercised. The doctrine that every man being individually responsible to his Maker and Judge, must, in all those concerns that affect his spiritual and eternal welfare, act according to the dictates of his conscience, is that cardinal principle of the Protestant faith which should be most strenuously guarded. But there is a wide difference between the unlimited and the restricted right of private judgment; between each individual forming his code of religious doctrine, without employing as lights amidst the innumerable and jarring opinions that perplex his researches, the faith of the universal Church, as far as he can ascertain it; and the same individual, while he claims the right, which no intelligent creature can surrender, of judging for himself, seeking with humility and with deference, that guidance which is to be found in the faith of the Church universal. He may, indeed, fail in his efforts; he must depend frequently on the learning and the information of others; and liability to error is inseparable from our present fallen state. But there is much less danger of error, when he follows the light, as far as it is disclosed to him, which has shone on the Church universal, than when he proudly violates that order of Providence by which, in the present world, the less informed must, in some measure, depend on those more enlightened; and takes for his guide, in matters of religion, his own judgment, taste, and fancy; disregarding entirely the faith of the great body of Christians in all places and at all times." (CCR)
In an address to Episcopalians about the "New York Bible and Common Prayer Book Society," he speaks of the Liturgy of the Church and its evangelical truth,
"I speak now of those truths which are considered fundamental--the corruption and guilt of man--the divinity, the atonement, and the intercession of Jesus Christ--and salvation through a lively faith in him, and through the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost. To quote all the passages which set forth these doctrines would be to transcribe the Liturgy. They constitute the spirit that gives life to every page, that glows in every expression of this inimitable volume; they are set forth, not in a form addressed merely to the understanding, but in that fervent language of devotion which reaches and sways the heart. Its opponents yield to it the praise of evangelical correctness. They think they bring the most decisive evidence of the want of evangelical fidelity in the preaching of the Ministers of the Church, when they assert that it contradicts the Articles and Liturgy; that the pulpit is at variance with the desk. It is a singular glory of our Liturgy, that it is the only formulary which all Protestants acknowledge as a correct exhibition of evangelical doctrine. What greater service, then, can we render to a benighted and ruined world, than to circulate, in conjunction with the Bible, this admirable summary of its renovating truths! What more proper companion for the sacred volume, in the divine labour of evangelising the world, than that book which truly sets forth, in the simple and affecting language of devotion, Jesus Christ, and him crucified--Jesus Christ, in all his offices, as the only Saviour of sinners!" (PL)
In an effort to be more cautious with citing my sources...
The unmarked citations above come from a charge from Bishop Hobart, "The Churchman: The Principles of the Churchman Stated and Explained, in Distinction from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome and from the Errors of Certain Protestant Sects."
Citations marked "CCR", come from the charge, "The Corruptions of the Church of Rome Contrasted with Certain Protestant Errors."
Citations marked "HCV" come from the charge, "The High Churchman Vindicated"
Citations marked "PL" are taken from, "A Pastoral Letter to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New York"