English. For the Scottish Church has had hitherto one definite and consistent character: in the English, whatever may be taught on paper, two contrary religions are practically maintained, with an understanding that they must tolerate each other. And thus in whatever degree it shall appear probable from the following pages, that even the Anglican Church herself may come eventually to harmonize with the Eastern, in the same, and in a still greater degree, will this conclusion have been established of the Scottish Church. A few words are still needed on the method followed in the present compilation, and on the materials which have been used in it. As regards the method pursued in the Appendix, the design being to shew the possibility of future reconciliation, not the existence of actual agreement, thus much only seemed requisite; first, that an Anglican doctrine similar to the Eastern should be shewn on every point to exist; and secondly, that this, if not already the formal doctrine of the Anglican Church, should at least be uncondemned by her, and capable of becoming her formal doctrine hereafter. For both these objects, the production of two or three credible witnesses on each topic might fairly be esteemed sufficient. If more have been alleged, it has been generally in order to notice different parts of the same subject, or else for some other particular reason, not with any idea of adding force by a multitude of quotations. Indeed it has not been thought necessary so much as to specify under each section the precise authority of the doctrine stated; nor how far opposite opinions on some points may be tolerated or even taught or encouraged: nor again, how far any public acts or formularies, as the XXXIX Articles, may seem to be inconsistent with passages adduced; and in what way such inconsistency may admit of reconciliation. Whatever light may be thrown on these or other like points, will be thrown on them only incidentally. However, in point of fact, where the doctrine of the Church is clear and undeniable, this will generally appear of itself. And in every case that at least which is essential, namely, that the orthodox opinion is as yet uncensured and free to hold, will be rendered certain, it is hoped, by the very titles of the documents, or by the names, dignities, and characters of the witnesses which are cited. As for the materials used, a table of the titles of public documents, and of the names and ages of all Bishops and Divines whose works are cited, will be found at the end. A better selection of passages might no doubt have been made; but circumstanced as the compiler was, he was obliged to content himself with whatever was most accessible. Here one document only requires to be specially noticed; and that is the earlier English Service-book, of the year 1548; which some might else think unfairly quoted for usages afterwards omitted and never yet restored. But in truth even the Crown and the Parliament which ordered those omissions to be made, bore witness at the same time that the things omitted were not condemned. The first book, they declared, was "a very godly Order, agreeable to the Word of God and the primitive Church, very comfortable to all good people, and most profitable to the state of this realm." and whatever doubts had been raised about the same, "proceeded rather from the curiosity of... mistakers, than of any other worthy cause." (Act of Unif. 1552.) And of the same book they had shortly before declared, that it was ordered by the most learned Bishops "with one uniform agreement, and by the aid of the Holy Ghost." In conclusion, thus much may be addressed generally to all members of our Communion. If there is here set forth a body of doctrine, which is consistent with itself as a whole, not a mass of heterogeneous opinions; which is of native, not of foreign growth; appealing rather to the sympathies of Catholics, than to the passions of sectaries; proceeding from the lips and pens of our own standard Bishops and Divines, not from those of hostile authorities; if this body of doctrine differs but little from the present theology of the Western, while it harmonizes entirely with that of the Eastern and of the primitive Church; if it courts even our prejudices in offering us a strong position against Rome, while it seconds our best wishes in bringing us nearer to unity; if, besides, it requires neither doubt, nor secession, nor re-baptism, nor reordination in order to be embraced, but is already our own, perfectly free for us to hold, the most consistent exponent of our actual position, needing only to be synodically asserted to restore us to communion with the East, then, surely, they must be no light reasons, no mere indifference to truth, no mere bigotry to personal or popular habit, no mere reluctance to confess and amend what is wrong, which can justify us in refusing to such a body of doctrine the most attentive and friendly consideration. |