No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Such generous and sympathetic recognition of the ecumenical importance of Anglicanism as that expressed by Professor Manson in his paper on Church and Intercommunion1 is always both inspiring and humbling to Anglicans who feel the pain of separation from their Christian brethren. They believe that God is calling the Anglican Church to play a difficult but important role in the healing of Christian divisions, and cannot but be encouraged when they find, among members of other Churches, an appreciation of what Professor Manson calls the ‘immense ecumenical potentiality’ of Anglicanism. But if Anglicanism is to be in any real sense an ‘instrument of ecumenical rapprochement’, both Anglicans and non-Anglicans must understand clearly what it is and what it is not; much confusion exists because it has been misrepresented both from within and from without, by those who would have it, or suppose it to be, something other than it really is. To define Anglicanism, how-ever, is far from easy, for it has an elusive and, indeed, a unique quality, but I hope to suggest in this paper certain lines at least along which better understanding may be sought, and to remove one or two of the more obvious misconceptions which tend to confuse discussion and to exacerbate controversy.
page 374 note 1 In the Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. iv, No. i.Google Scholar
page 376 note 1 Vidler, A. R., The Theology of F. D. Maurice, p. 212.Google Scholar
page 377 note 1 See, in this connexion, Graham, E., ‘Non-established Anglicanism’, in Theology Vol. liii, No. 356 (Feb. 1950), pp. 42–46.Google Scholar
page 377 note 2 Works (Lib. of Anglo-Cath. Theol.), viii, p. 617.Google Scholar
page 377 note 3 For further consideration of some of the points dealt with in the rest of this paper, see Ramsey, A. M., ‘What is Anglican Theology ?’, in Theology, Vol. xlviii, No. 295 (Jan. 1945)Google Scholar; Vidler, A. R., ‘What is Anglicanism?’, in Theology, Vol. li, Nos. 336 and 337 (June and July 1948)Google Scholar; and More, P. E., ‘The Spirit of Anglicanism’, in Anglicanism (London, 1935), pp. xix ffGoogle Scholar; to all of which I am indebted.
page 378 note 1 Works (Lib. of Anglo-Cath. Theol.), i, p. 38.Google Scholar
page 379 note 1 The Kingdom of Christ (Everyman, ed.), ii, pp. 296–297.Google Scholar
page 382 note 1 de Trin. iv. 6 (Migne, Pair. Lat., xlii. col. 895).
page 382 note 2 Works (Lib. of Anglo-Cath. Theol.), vii, p. x.
page 382 note 3 ibid, pp. 343–4.
page 383 note 1 Works (Lib. of Anglo-Cath. Theol.), v, pp. 269–270.Google Scholar
page 383 note 2 op. cit., p. 5.
page 384 note 1 The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, V. lxv. 2 (Works [Oxford, 1888], ii, p. 318.)Google Scholar
page 384 note 2 See, e.g., Nos. 74, 76, 78, and 81.
page 385 note 1 Prov. xx. 27
page 385 note 2 Chillingworth, W., Works (Oxford, 1838), i, pp. 237–238.Google Scholar
page 385 note 3 See Tulloch, J., Rational Theology … in England in the Seventeenth Century, ii, P. 354.Google Scholar
page 387 note 1 op. cit., pp. xxxii ff.
page 387 note 2 op. cit., Theology, No. 337, p. 245.