 |
| PD-US, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12782931 |
Popular
Misconceptions of the Episcopal Church.
By
William Reed Huntington.
New
York: Thomas Whittaker, 1891.
Chapter
VI. That it is a House Divided against itself.
…The new consciousness
beginning to dawn in the heart and mind of the Episcopal Church is the
consciousness of a special call to play an intercessory and mediatorial part in
the needed work of a general reconciliation. What makes it possible for an
Episcopalian to take this line of remark without subjecting himself to any just
charge of arrogance, is the fact that he bases his peace-making effort wholly
upon historical, and not at all upon personal grounds. He does not say,
"Trust us as reconcilers, because [81/82] our ecclesiastics are so much
more astute, our theologians so much more profound, and our communicant members
so much more devout, than yours." He simply says: "Look at the
history of Anglican religion, as a history, and judge for yourselves whether it
do not give evidence of a greater power of inclusiveness, a more promising
facility at comprehending a large variety of types, both of character and of
action, than any rival system has ever, among the people of our own race,
exhibited."
But the power to
assimilate types and to comprehend varieties is the very gift which we demand
of the intermediary who is to help us in this task of composing our
differences. The unity of which American Christians are in search is a
"live and let live" unity. They perceive that the shutting-out policy
is what has brought us to our present broken estate. What they are reaching
after is the Church that shall be intolerant of these two things, and of only
these two things--first, wickedness; secondly, the denial of what is
confessedly central to the faith. Purity of character, as estimated by the
ethical standards of the New Testament; purity of belief, as tested by the
primitive Creeds--these are the only points upon which a united American Church
would find it needful to insist.
But the overtures
ventured by the Episcopal Church in the matter of unity are met with merciless
ridicule, on the ground that the theological divergences and party differences
within its own borders are so marked as to have become notorious.
"Physician, heal thyself!" is the not unnatural rejoinder of those to
whom Churchmen address their affectionate invitations to reunion.
[83] I propose to meet
this rejoinder by taking the ground that it is the existence of these very
divergences alleged, and the continuance of their existence within the
Anglican communion, that gives to that communion its best right to make the
plea it does.
…The point, however,
which I am particularly anxious to make is this, namely, that in a great
national Church all of these various ways of apprehending and practising
religion ought to find place. A national Church wholly made up of High Churchmen,
or wholly made [84/85] up of Low Churchmen, or wholly made up of Broad
Churchmen, would be a misfortune, if it were not first of all an impossibility.
Human nature being what it is, a Church could not become national that should
begin by insisting upon all its members conforming to one or other of these
three types. It has been the peculiar blessedness of the Anglican communion
that in the providence of God it has escaped this lust of delimitation.
…It is because of its
having gradually acquired, during a long history, this inclusive character,
that the Episcopal Church is able without immodesty to volunteer its good
offices in that effort to come to a better understanding which so many souls in
all the communions are earnestly desirous of seeing set on foot. Such overtures
would be impertinent indeed if this Church were really "a house divided
against itself; "--but is it that? Come and see.
THE END.
