Mr. Dimock, in his valuable pamphlet on “Christian Unity “ (p. 20, note), observes that “in the Church of Rome” (meaning by that phrase, the local church at Rome), “perhaps by reason of its faithful adherence to the truth, the development of Episcopacy was exceptionally tardy,” and he quotes Bp. Lightfoot, who says, “The episcopate, though doubtless it existed in some form or other in Rome, had not yet (it would seem) assumed the same sharp and well-defined monarchical character with which we are confronted in the eastern churches.” Canon Robertson, the historian, when speaking of church government in general, says, “We do not refuse to acknowledge that the organisation of the Church was gradual; we are only concerned to maintain that it was directed by the apostles . . . and that in all essential points it was completed before their departure” (Hist. I.,12). It is only in that sense that the Preface to our Ordinal asserts that “from the apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” That statement does not allege that these orders are of divine obligation, or that any one of them is essential to the very being, or to the definition of a “church,” though it does, by inference, lay claim at least negatively to apostolic sanction. Read more
Monday, September 24, 2012
The Attitude of the Church of England towards the Ministry of Non-episcopal Churches - Church Association Tract 424
Mr. Dimock, in his valuable pamphlet on “Christian Unity “ (p. 20, note), observes that “in the Church of Rome” (meaning by that phrase, the local church at Rome), “perhaps by reason of its faithful adherence to the truth, the development of Episcopacy was exceptionally tardy,” and he quotes Bp. Lightfoot, who says, “The episcopate, though doubtless it existed in some form or other in Rome, had not yet (it would seem) assumed the same sharp and well-defined monarchical character with which we are confronted in the eastern churches.” Canon Robertson, the historian, when speaking of church government in general, says, “We do not refuse to acknowledge that the organisation of the Church was gradual; we are only concerned to maintain that it was directed by the apostles . . . and that in all essential points it was completed before their departure” (Hist. I.,12). It is only in that sense that the Preface to our Ordinal asserts that “from the apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” That statement does not allege that these orders are of divine obligation, or that any one of them is essential to the very being, or to the definition of a “church,” though it does, by inference, lay claim at least negatively to apostolic sanction. Read more
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment