There has been just the same difficulty with reference to that remarkable movement which originated at Oxford about fifty years ago, beginning with Tractarianism, and now developed into Ritualism. It has all along professed to be an effort for the revival of Church Principles, and as such has been heartily supported by a considerable number of loyal and true-hearted Churchmen. By “Church Principles” they have understood the real principles of the Church of England; and, as loyal Churchmen, they have welcomed the movement, believing it to be an effort to recommend and develop those principles. In this they have been encouraged by the use of the epithet “High.” The Ritualistic party call themselves “High Church,” and so do many of that large class of Churchmen to whom I have just referred. The result is that, although they have not altogether approved of some things which they have read or seen, still, on the great, broad basis of High Churchism they have considered that they have more affinity with that movement than they have with those whom they designate “Low.” They sincerely disapprove of many things said and done by Ritualists, but they cannot quite get over the fact that if Churchmen are to be classed as either High or Low, they and the Ritualists, at all events, class themselves together as High. But many amongst us have for a long time been profoundly convinced that the Church principles of the loyal, conscientious, traditional High Churchman are totally different from the Church principles of the Ritualist; and that the epithet “High” means in the language of the two classes two totally different things. In the one it means a faithful adhesion to the Prayer Book and its principles; but in the other a dissatisfaction with the Prayer Book, and a craving after something beyond: in the one a rising to it, and in the other a departure from it. To many amongst us this has been perfectly plain for years. But still it has been impossible to prove it, for there have been no authoritative documents; and, even if there had been any they would not have been likely to contain any such avowal. It has been seen perfectly clearly in sermons, in pamphlets, in books, and in the ceremonial imitation of Rome. But still, individual words and actions could only be regarded as proofs of individual opinions, and therefore, although they left no doubt on the minds of observers, they could not be accepted as absolute proofs of disloyalty against any of those who were not themselves guilty of disloyal acts.